For Singaporeans who are used to viewing things here and even overseas from a Singaporean perspective, it is strange that when it comes to our own history, they will see it through Western （mainly British） eyes.
How long is our history？ The “standard answer” is more than 100 years. And the “standard answer” to when our history begins is： From the day Sir Stamford Raffles set foot on the island in 1819. Does it mean then that the island has no history prior to the arrival of Stamford Raffles？ How ridiculous！
Not surprisingly, history textbooks written by the British for us during the colonial times chose an angle to give prominence to their achievements. They also tried to give the impression that Singapore‘s history began only after the arrival of the British and it was the British who give the island its lifeline and subsequent progress and prosperity.
The intention here is not to write off the contributions of Stamford Raffles and the British in developing the island, but to make the point that this account of our history is incomplete.
How did Stamford Raffles gain control of the island？ This is a critical question in our history that not many have bothered themselves with. For a long time, we had danced to the British tune and sung the praises of the colonial master.
Books published by the British all tell of how Stamford Raffles “took Singapore by strategy”, but probe further and we will find that there is another account of what happened. This version has it that Stamford Raffles got himself involved in the palace struggles of the Johore-Rhio Sultanate. He backed Crown Prince Tungku Long as the Sultan and then got him to sign a deal with Britain to cede the island to the British permanently.
Tungku Long who later became Sultan Hussein, was still living in Rhio in 1819. It was Stamford Raffles who brought him to Singapore to be installed as the Sultan and the British even built a palace for him in Kampong Glam. Singaporeans who are ignorant of this part of our history will no doubt wonder why there was previously a palace in Kampong Glam.
The documentation of history in feudal China adhered closely to a stubborn tradition of not telling the truth about people in authority, especially the emperor and high-ranking officials, for fear of incurring their wrath. As a result, only their merits were recorded but not their faults and the truth became hard to establish.
This poses a major problem now for the study of the history of ancient China for historians. We are no longer living in a feudal society； do we need to cling on to this tradition？
We should not deny Stamford Raffles the credit of having the foresight to recognise Singapore‘s advantageous geographical location and playing a role in the growth of the island. But there was no question that he did everything in the interests of the British empire. Had there been any conflict of interests between Singapore and Britain, he would never have done anything at the expense of the latter.
Records of Britain‘s days as a colonial master penned by the British often make no mention either of the history of blood and tears of Chinese indentured labourers or the sad and miserable life of Indian workers （prisoners in India brought to Singapore by the British to perform hard labour） and their contributions to public works in Singapore.
The processing and trading of opium here in the early years and widespread corruption in the 50s were also ugly sides of the society duing the British rule. For younger generations of Singaporeans to have a good grasp of our history and appreciate the progress that we have made over the years, all these should be objectively and accurately captured in our school textbooks.
The British who governed Singapore for more than a hundred years must have done quite a few things that they could not be proud of. While they have reasons to avoid mentioning them, we should see them as part of our history.
If we give the British rule undue recognition and praises and do not bring its ugly sides to light, young Singaporeans may well wonder： “If the colonial rule was so desirable, why did we fight to put an end to it？”
（The writer is an Executive Sub-editor of Lianhe Zaobao. Translated by Yap Gee Poh.）
新加坡人看今天的新加坡都習慣用自己的眼睛,看外國也非常習慣用自己的眼睛,但是,碰到自己國家的歷史時,卻神不知鬼不覺地換了用洋人（主要是英國人）的眼睛。
問一問新加坡的歷史有多長,“標準答案”是百多年。再問：那是從什么時候算起的？還是“標準答案”：從萊佛士1819年在新加坡登陸那天算起。那么,萊佛士到新加坡之前,新加坡就沒有歷史嗎？太可笑了！
殖民地時代英國人寫給我們讀的歷史,采取的是大英帝國的視角,這一點也不奇怪,他們當然要突出英國人的功勞。他們試圖給人一種印象：新加坡的歷史是從英國人來了之后才開始的,是英國人給了這個小島生命,帶來了進步與繁榮。
我們無意抹煞萊佛士與英國人對新加坡的開發(fā)所做的貢獻,但我們要說,那不是我們歷史的全部。
萊佛士如何取得新加坡？很少人深究這個新加坡歷的重大問題。長期以來,我們都是按照英國人定的調子,歌頌英殖民者的功績。
英國人的書講的都是萊佛士如何“智取”新加坡,但是,如果深入了解,我們就會發(fā)現(xiàn)故事其實有另一個版本。這個版本是說,萊佛士介入柔佛廖內王朝的宮廷紛爭,他扶持原來的王儲東姑隆上臺當蘇丹,然后由這位蘇丹與英方簽約,將新加坡永久割讓給英國。
這位英國人一手扶上蘇丹寶座的東姑隆,即是后來的蘇丹胡申。新加坡開埠那年,他還住在廖內,是萊佛士將他迎來新加坡登基為蘇丹的,英國人還在甘榜格南為他建了一座王宮。不知道這段歷史,人們就無法理解,為什么甘榜格南曾經有一座蘇丹王宮。
中國歷史記載有個頑強的傳統(tǒng)：為尊者諱,尤其是本朝的史官寫本朝的帝王,都不敢講真話、記壞事,盡量隱惡揚善,文過飾非。
這個傳統(tǒng)使后人難以了解真實的歷史,對于史學是個極大的傷害。今天,我們已告別封建時代,難道還要死抱為尊者諱的傳統(tǒng)不放嗎？
萊佛士的功績,我們當然不能抹煞,他的眼光獨到,很早就看到了新加坡的優(yōu)越地理位置,他對于新加坡的開發(fā)是有貢獻的。然而,他所做的一切,首先是為了大英帝國的利益,這是毫無疑問的。
當新加坡人民的利益與英國殖民者的利益有沖突的時候,他絕不會為了新加坡人民而犧牲大英帝國的利益,這也是不言而喻的。
英國人寫的殖民史,往往不提豬仔（契約勞工）的血淚史,也不講早年印度勞工（英國人將在印度關的囚犯押來新加坡做苦工）的辛酸史,以及他們對新加坡公共工程的貢獻。
再有,早期在新加坡的鴉片加工與買賣,50年代的貪污風氣等等,都是英國殖民統(tǒng)治時代的陰暗面,都應當公正、客觀地寫出來,編入我們的歷史教科書,讓我們的下一代正確認識自己國家的歷史,看到今天新加坡的進步。
英殖民統(tǒng)治百多年,肯定干了許多不光彩的事,如果英國人有回避那段不光彩歷史的必要,那么我們呢？也有這個必要嗎？
如果對英國的殖民統(tǒng)治給予過多的肯定與贊美,而不指出其陰暗面,那么我們的年輕一代就要問：既然殖民統(tǒng)治那么好,干嗎要反對？干嗎要求結束殖民統(tǒng)治？
How long is our history？ The “standard answer” is more than 100 years. And the “standard answer” to when our history begins is： From the day Sir Stamford Raffles set foot on the island in 1819. Does it mean then that the island has no history prior to the arrival of Stamford Raffles？ How ridiculous！
Not surprisingly, history textbooks written by the British for us during the colonial times chose an angle to give prominence to their achievements. They also tried to give the impression that Singapore‘s history began only after the arrival of the British and it was the British who give the island its lifeline and subsequent progress and prosperity.
The intention here is not to write off the contributions of Stamford Raffles and the British in developing the island, but to make the point that this account of our history is incomplete.
How did Stamford Raffles gain control of the island？ This is a critical question in our history that not many have bothered themselves with. For a long time, we had danced to the British tune and sung the praises of the colonial master.
Books published by the British all tell of how Stamford Raffles “took Singapore by strategy”, but probe further and we will find that there is another account of what happened. This version has it that Stamford Raffles got himself involved in the palace struggles of the Johore-Rhio Sultanate. He backed Crown Prince Tungku Long as the Sultan and then got him to sign a deal with Britain to cede the island to the British permanently.
Tungku Long who later became Sultan Hussein, was still living in Rhio in 1819. It was Stamford Raffles who brought him to Singapore to be installed as the Sultan and the British even built a palace for him in Kampong Glam. Singaporeans who are ignorant of this part of our history will no doubt wonder why there was previously a palace in Kampong Glam.
The documentation of history in feudal China adhered closely to a stubborn tradition of not telling the truth about people in authority, especially the emperor and high-ranking officials, for fear of incurring their wrath. As a result, only their merits were recorded but not their faults and the truth became hard to establish.
This poses a major problem now for the study of the history of ancient China for historians. We are no longer living in a feudal society； do we need to cling on to this tradition？
We should not deny Stamford Raffles the credit of having the foresight to recognise Singapore‘s advantageous geographical location and playing a role in the growth of the island. But there was no question that he did everything in the interests of the British empire. Had there been any conflict of interests between Singapore and Britain, he would never have done anything at the expense of the latter.
Records of Britain‘s days as a colonial master penned by the British often make no mention either of the history of blood and tears of Chinese indentured labourers or the sad and miserable life of Indian workers （prisoners in India brought to Singapore by the British to perform hard labour） and their contributions to public works in Singapore.
The processing and trading of opium here in the early years and widespread corruption in the 50s were also ugly sides of the society duing the British rule. For younger generations of Singaporeans to have a good grasp of our history and appreciate the progress that we have made over the years, all these should be objectively and accurately captured in our school textbooks.
The British who governed Singapore for more than a hundred years must have done quite a few things that they could not be proud of. While they have reasons to avoid mentioning them, we should see them as part of our history.
If we give the British rule undue recognition and praises and do not bring its ugly sides to light, young Singaporeans may well wonder： “If the colonial rule was so desirable, why did we fight to put an end to it？”
（The writer is an Executive Sub-editor of Lianhe Zaobao. Translated by Yap Gee Poh.）
新加坡人看今天的新加坡都習慣用自己的眼睛,看外國也非常習慣用自己的眼睛,但是,碰到自己國家的歷史時,卻神不知鬼不覺地換了用洋人（主要是英國人）的眼睛。
問一問新加坡的歷史有多長,“標準答案”是百多年。再問：那是從什么時候算起的？還是“標準答案”：從萊佛士1819年在新加坡登陸那天算起。那么,萊佛士到新加坡之前,新加坡就沒有歷史嗎？太可笑了！
殖民地時代英國人寫給我們讀的歷史,采取的是大英帝國的視角,這一點也不奇怪,他們當然要突出英國人的功勞。他們試圖給人一種印象：新加坡的歷史是從英國人來了之后才開始的,是英國人給了這個小島生命,帶來了進步與繁榮。
我們無意抹煞萊佛士與英國人對新加坡的開發(fā)所做的貢獻,但我們要說,那不是我們歷史的全部。
萊佛士如何取得新加坡？很少人深究這個新加坡歷的重大問題。長期以來,我們都是按照英國人定的調子,歌頌英殖民者的功績。
英國人的書講的都是萊佛士如何“智取”新加坡,但是,如果深入了解,我們就會發(fā)現(xiàn)故事其實有另一個版本。這個版本是說,萊佛士介入柔佛廖內王朝的宮廷紛爭,他扶持原來的王儲東姑隆上臺當蘇丹,然后由這位蘇丹與英方簽約,將新加坡永久割讓給英國。
這位英國人一手扶上蘇丹寶座的東姑隆,即是后來的蘇丹胡申。新加坡開埠那年,他還住在廖內,是萊佛士將他迎來新加坡登基為蘇丹的,英國人還在甘榜格南為他建了一座王宮。不知道這段歷史,人們就無法理解,為什么甘榜格南曾經有一座蘇丹王宮。
中國歷史記載有個頑強的傳統(tǒng)：為尊者諱,尤其是本朝的史官寫本朝的帝王,都不敢講真話、記壞事,盡量隱惡揚善,文過飾非。
這個傳統(tǒng)使后人難以了解真實的歷史,對于史學是個極大的傷害。今天,我們已告別封建時代,難道還要死抱為尊者諱的傳統(tǒng)不放嗎？
萊佛士的功績,我們當然不能抹煞,他的眼光獨到,很早就看到了新加坡的優(yōu)越地理位置,他對于新加坡的開發(fā)是有貢獻的。然而,他所做的一切,首先是為了大英帝國的利益,這是毫無疑問的。
當新加坡人民的利益與英國殖民者的利益有沖突的時候,他絕不會為了新加坡人民而犧牲大英帝國的利益,這也是不言而喻的。
英國人寫的殖民史,往往不提豬仔（契約勞工）的血淚史,也不講早年印度勞工（英國人將在印度關的囚犯押來新加坡做苦工）的辛酸史,以及他們對新加坡公共工程的貢獻。
再有,早期在新加坡的鴉片加工與買賣,50年代的貪污風氣等等,都是英國殖民統(tǒng)治時代的陰暗面,都應當公正、客觀地寫出來,編入我們的歷史教科書,讓我們的下一代正確認識自己國家的歷史,看到今天新加坡的進步。
英殖民統(tǒng)治百多年,肯定干了許多不光彩的事,如果英國人有回避那段不光彩歷史的必要,那么我們呢？也有這個必要嗎？
如果對英國的殖民統(tǒng)治給予過多的肯定與贊美,而不指出其陰暗面,那么我們的年輕一代就要問：既然殖民統(tǒng)治那么好,干嗎要反對？干嗎要求結束殖民統(tǒng)治？