Do we prefer a ang mo once-upon-a-time to an Asian one?
http://straitstimes.asia1.com.sg/forum/story/0,5562,353074,00.html?
Nov 16, 2005
S'pore history began long before Raffles
THE documentary by Discovery Channel will entrench the
misconception that Singapore's history began with Stamford Raffles
('Bold new show on S'pore history'; ST, Nov 12).
The report mentioned 're-enactments of Singapore's history right
back to 1819, when Raffles landed' and the settlement of Temasek
which the British colonialist then discovered.
Archaeologist John Miksic is preparing a book that will gather the
results of his research over the last 20 years. His findings on
Fort Canning in 1984 clearly established that the legendary
13th-century Temasek of the Sejarah Melayu, which in fact drew
Raffles to this island, was a historical reality.
Since then, Associate Professor Miksic has kept on digging whenever
the opportunity is given to him (which is not that often) and he
has by now established that Temasek was a sizeable and prosperous
Asian trading port.
Temasek/Singapura's pattern of trading activity was in fact a
direct continuation of Srivijaya and brought about the rise of
Malacca as a port. It should be no surprise then if it took on that
role again in the 19th century at the instigation of the
British.
And although its political fortune went down with the rise of its
competitor on the peninsula, the port remained active until the
early 17th century when it was destroyed in an Acehnese
attack.
That's a good four centuries of existence, as opposed to the less
than two of modern Singapore! It is also to be noted that the
change of name from Temasek to Singapura took place much earlier
than Raffles' arrival, as the documentary seems to imply.
It is mentioned as having a mythical cause in the Sejarah Melayu,
and it is recorded in trading documents as having taken place in
the 14th century.
To ignore such facts in Singapore's history fails to give the true
background of today's economic and social reality. Raffles' choice
wasn't haphazard. It was based on an already long and documented
history, which for some reason seems to be ignored
systematically.
It leaves me rather puzzled to see Singaporeans hanging so dearly
to a colonialist version of their history, one that is enforced by
today's colonialist power of the media. When will Singapore finally
come to terms with its true Asian history?
Gilles Massot
