I have stopped reading the ST Forum for a long time, because I have considered some of the articles published to be so pathetically stupid. At times, I felt so ashamed at some of the things written, that I felt foreigners who read them must have considered all Singaporeans as either imbeciles or idiots. That’s not mentioning at times I felt the editors may have deliberately published them for nothing more than the purpose of ‘creating some debate’ or to let the writer himself be ridiculed. If not for dk99 talking about this article the other day, I wouldn’t have gone looking up the following:
Don’t go overboard
In his letter on Wednesday, Mr Philip Siow proposed constructing a replica of the Indiana, the ship that brought Sir Stamford Raffles to Singapore in 1819. He suggested displaying it along the Esplanade waterfront ‘to add historical richness and colour’.
Mr Siow described Raffles as one of the ‘two architects who created what is modern Singapore’. The other is Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew. I do not agree with this proposal for three reasons.
# First, our colonial past is nothing to be proud of. Those who lived under colonial rule, like me, will tell you that it was not a beautiful experience. Raffles’ statue in front of the Victoria Concert Hall and the buildings, roads and other facilities bearing his name are reminders enough of the inglorious chapter in our history.
# Second, Raffles established Singapore as a trading post not for our benefit but for the benefit of the British Empire. He stayed here for only nine months. Thus, although he drew up plans for ‘a great commercial emporium’ and a ‘free port’, his achievements for Singapore could not have been very significant.
# Third, life in Singapore did not begin with Raffles’ arrival in 1819. Singapore was a vibrant ancient city, teeming with life and trade, as early as the 14th century. We would be going overboard if we accept Mr Siow’s proposal.
On the other hand, Mr Lee Kuan Yew certainly deserves credit for Singapore’s tremendous achievements. He led the charge to topple British colonial rule and orchestrated the transformation of the nation from Third World to First World. Indeed, he and the Old Guard accomplished more for Singapore in one generation than the British did in 140 years.
Anthony Oei
I do not know why it upset Oei so much to have a replica of the Indiana constructed ‘to add historical richness and colour’. I would have expected it to be a museum of sort and yet another tourist attraction for our little island, not to mention it would serve the purpose of educating our children of our nation’s history. After all, even Malacca has its own Maritime Museum. Is it too much to ask for one of our own?
Really, I find it amusing that Oei talks about Singapore’s history preceding the arrival of Raffles and the British, but selectively failed to mention to readers that when Cheng Ho sailed past during his voyages, Temasek (as Singapore was known then) didn’t even warrant a stop. Did it not surprise you that the Ming Dynasty fleet stopped by Malacca but not Singapore? That’s not mentioning that in 1613 the Portuguese set the settlement ablaze and until 1819 it was nothing more than a small fishing village. (You can find a record of the Portuguese attack on Fort Canning Hill.)
Oei may want to diminish Raffles founding of Singapore as merely taking it as a port for the British East India Company, but it was this very pivotal event that changed Singapore’s fate. The British Empire then took full control of the island of Singapore in 1824 and by 1869 it was a colony of 100,000 people.
Still, some may find nothing great or pleasant about British colonial rule. And indeed, even my parents do not remember their childhood days under British rule fondly. However, they also consider their hardships as the aftermath of the Japanese Occupation and the Second World War as much as British mismanagement. Now consider that period between 1945 – 1959, where nationalist sentiments run high and the Communist threat is real, as a part of the British Empire’s entire 137 years of rule. In all those years, did all the investments the British Empire put into building up the colony never in anyway benefited the inhabitants in it, no matter how insignificant?
If that is so, then how is it that British Singapore became a cradle for this nation’s founding fathers like Toh Chin Chye, Goh Keng Swee, Rajaratnam, the Ministor Mentor? And what about the others like David Marshall and Lim Chin Siong etc, who also contributed to Singapore’s Independence and the PAP’s domination in politics respectively?
In fact, it annoys me that when Oei expressed his gratitude to the Minister Mentor, he forgot the rest of the people who also made their mark in Singapore’s history. Even while what Oei has written nothing idiotic or wrong on their own, it still irks me because he selectively presents only the parts of history acceptable to him to make a point.
Is Oei telling us that because he views our colonial history as something disgusting and painful, it should all be expunged from our memories? While he is entitled to view Singapore’s history anyway he wants, clearly we can do better with a more balanced view of our nation’s history.
Cartoons:
iif raffles found singapore becos of her own empire interest, then his master lee kuan yew gain independent from the british, dont tellll me not because of his own self interest too???look at how much money he legalllly made for himself until now.those who listen to him( yes man), who carry his ballls and who are not anti PAP law, will gain alll the benefit from him.so, tell me please, if ralffles found singapore for british interest, then how about lee kuan yew???
Anthony Oei has been a journalist with The Straits Times, Far Eastern Economic Review and Radio & Television Singapura, public relations manager of the Economic Development Board and a writer with several advertising agencies. He looks back proudly to 1984 when one of his creations for a Singapore oil company won the top prize for “copywriting excellence” at the Asian Advertising Congress in Seoul, South Korea. This is his third book, a revised edition of his previous work, “What If There Had Been No Lee Kuan Yew?” (1992). Another of his earlier works is “Building A New Niche: The Story of Dr David B H Chew” (1991). Both books were published by Heinemann Asia.
He is plugging his own book by writing that forum letter
Imagine… A person X was used by his friend Y to start a business, because Y knows X knows a lot of people. Their business grows and subsequently Y left and splitted partnership with X.
X continues to run the same business as he learnt a lot knowledge of this business of Y and prospers… and now business grown very great.
But wait…. Does it means that X feel very ashamed with his past of learning how to run business from Y, despite Y’s intention is to use X’s connection to make profit at the beginning?…
Oei… oh Oei… What so shame of our past with Raffles?
” Did it not surprise you that the Ming Dynasty fleet stopped by Malacca but not Singapore? ”
In the same way, Did it not surprise you that the Olympic fleet stopped by Malaysia but not Singapore?
Singapore is still insignicant today as it is in the past. It just make itself to believe that it is still indispensable. The world can do without Singapore.
Dude, this letter was published in the Straits Times… did you expect a less-than-glowing assessment of the contributions of a Mr. Lee (even at the expense of downplaying that of Raffles’)? 😉
I read the same article as well but didn’t bother to write about it.
He forgot that without Raffles, there can be no Singapore.
Raffles founded Singapore. He form a committee to draw out the town plan (Jackson plan). He draft out the first constitution for Singapore. He started the first School in Singapore. He started the botanic garden.
Oei may not like the British Colonial rule. But he cannot erase the contributions that Raffles made to Singapore. So tell me, why shouldn’t we honor him by building a replica of the Indiana?
DK´s last blog post: Earth Hour