The Bicentennial and the Layperson

In his speech during the launch of the Singapore Bicentennial on January 28 this year, Prime Minister (PM) Lee Hsien Loong spoke about Singapore’s pre-colonial history: Singapore was already a thriving seaport known as Temasek in the 14^th century; and that, two centuries before Raffles’ landed, Flemish gem trader Jacques de Coutre proposed to the King of Spain to build a fortress in Singapore – a proposal which, had it been accepted, would have made Singapore a Spanish colony instead of a British one⁴.

Conversations with ordinary Singaporeans suggest that the notion that Singapore pre-1819 was a vastly underdeveloped island inhabited by a small population of indigenous sea nomads or sea gypsies known as orang laut is quite prevalent. The island was thought to be a ‘sleepy fishing village’ until Raffles came to lay the foundations for governance and administration, and economic and social developments.

Considering how pivotal history is in fostering understanding of contemporary societies, its role in forging one’s identity, and in inculcating a sense of belonging to the nation, there have been concerns expressed about whether Singapore’s history has been told selectively to the masses.

The late former Culture and Foreign Minister S Rajaratnam said in 1984 that to push a Singaporean’s awareness beyond 1819 would have been a misuse of history⁵. This stands in stark contrast with what the Singapore Bicentennial will roll out in the heartland between April and August this year: roadshows showcasing 700 years of the island’s history⁶.

Who Wrote Our History?

Academic Lily Zubaidah Rahim claimed that most Singaporean historians have relied on historical Chinese and European sources when examining the origins of Singapore because they found the textual references available to reconstruct Singapore’s pre-modern past, like the Malay Annals and Javanese Negarakretagama, difficult to interpret⁷.

The disputes over veracity of past texts should have been made known, not glossed over to lend credence to a selected narrative. Nor should narratives change when they cease to be useful to a particular group, generation or a purpose. History should be edited only when new evidence is unearthed or when new interpretations emerge that are peer-reviewed.

The Singapore Bicentennial is an occasion meant for all Singaporeans. Hence, it is important even for the laity to know what they are commemorating.

In the ensuing debates following the launch of the Singapore Bicentennial, ordinary Singaporeans are beginning to see several sides of Raffles that have hitherto been somewhat muted. Behind his persona as the visionary and astute founder of modern Singapore is a person who was an employee of the British East India Company, a company whose interests ostensibly was in trade but which did so by seizing territories and was embroiled in intense rivalry with counterparts of other major powers of that era, such as the Dutch East India Company. It is difficult to imagine that a scenario such as this will not engender exploitation of the colonised.

If the colonised are prospering under colonialism – wealth trickling down to them and their welfare well taken care of – there will be little motivation to seek independence. Singapore’s merger with Malaysia in 1963 ended her status as a Crown colony and 144 years of British rule.

What is good about the Bicentennial, at least for the common man, is that they are now being exposed to arguments that there may be a flourishing Singapore before the arrival of Raffles and that its history goes back some 700 years, not 200.

The lone statue of Raffles by the Singapore river is now joined by four others, albeit temporarily: Sang Nila Utama, Tan Tock Seng, Munsyi Abdullah and Naraina Pillai. Of the four, Sang Nila Utama’s inclusion is arguably the most relevant to the ongoing debates about Singapore’s 700-year history because the other three are Raffles’ contemporaries.

Sang Nila Utama or Sri Tri Buana?

The laymen would be familiar with Sang Nila Utama but his story is shrouded in doubts about whether he is a historically attested figure or a mythical one. This may be one of the reasons why familiarity with Sang Nila Utama’s story tend to not go beyond his encounter with the ‘lion’ and the momentous renaming of Temasek to Singapura (“City of the Sea Lion” in Sanskrit)⁸. Along with this, a substantial part of Singapore’s Javanese-Malay early history is obscured.

Had there been more emphasis on the name Sri Tri Buana, the official title Sang Nila Utama adopted upon coronation after the founding of Singapura, there will probably be greater acquaintance with stories of the emergence of Singapura as a major emporium and the thriving trade port in the 14^th century that PM Lee alluded to.

Perhaps, a major stumbling block to justifying the legitimacy of telling pre-Raffles history to the masses is the historicity of the sources concerned. The Sulalat al-Salatin, better known as Sejarah Melayu or Malay Annals, was printed in Singapore in the 1840s and edited by Munsyi Abdullah. Abdullah worked as a scribe for Raffles. It is one of the earliest surviving documentations of Temasek-Singapura, the oldest manuscript dating back to 1612⁹. However, some, including historians, have found the Malay Annals’ account of Sri Tri Buana – the story of his founding of Singapura familiar to Singaporeans¹⁰ – bordering on the fictional.

Alternative sources however tended to corroborate with Malay Annals in key aspects. For instance, while the Malay Annals’ version is that Sri Tri Buana set out on a hunting expedition (sport), discovered Temasek, an island he saw a future in¹¹, Portuguese writers such as d’Albuquerque, de Barros, and de Eredia wrote that the founder of Melaka was Parameswara (Sri Tri Buana), a vassal of Java who fled to Singapura, murdered the local ruler and usurped the throne¹². What is common in both these accounts are Sri Tri Buana’s journey from Palembang to Temasek and his descendant eventually fleeing Singapura – in the case of the Malay Annals, due to the betrayal of a disloyal subject; the Portuguese due to an avenging Thai overlord seeking revenge for the assassination of his vassal¹³.

Historian Kwa Chong Guan argues that both accounts display a similar underlying narrative structure and that the issue is not about selecting one that is more “historical” but to try to understand why they have come to be written the way they were¹⁴. To this end, it is worth noting that, prior to Abdullah's edition which became accessible to the laymen, stories from the Malay Annals were confined to being read out in court settings to elites, including the Sultanate's rulers¹⁵. Accordingly, the language and expressions would abide by the prevailing political underpinnings, values and practices palatable to the elites. These factors have to be considered before deeming a text ahistorical. As the anthropologist De Jong noted, the text contains mythological and legendary stories but they were realistically mixed with the historical events¹⁶.

The aim of this article is not to argue that the layperson should have a profound knowledge of Singapore’s history. To justify making the Singapore Bicentennial an occasion for all to commemorate, the lack of general knowledge of or misconceptions about pre-Raffles history among the laymen needs to be problematised. Otherwise, commemorating the Bicentennial would be synonymous with celebrating colonialism, given the notions that Raffles paved the way for a burgeoning modern Singapore.

It is heartening to note that the Bicentennial has not restricted itself to 200-year narrative but a 700-year one. This would hopefully help to bridge, at least to a small extent, the 500-year gap in knowledge of Singapore’s history among the laypersons.