A multiplicity of histories teaches us to think historically

17 Aug 1996

Mr Koo Tsai Kees letter demonstrates the selective nature of historical 
accounts (ST, Aug 17).

He cited two examples of historical falsification to support his 
prescription that wrong interpretations of history should be rejected: 
the denial of the Holocaust and Japans aggression during the Second World 
War. However, historical falsification is entirely different from 
alternative interpretations of facts. And how can a person reject 
something unless she is fully informed of what it is she is rejecting?

His examples also show the danger of manipulation if only one version of 
history is available. Neo-Nazis or Japanese right-wingers argue as 
fervently as Mr Koo that all versions of history contrary to theirs are 
wrong and should be rejected to prevent young Germans or Japanese from 
being misled. This shows that we should never allow others to suppress 
alternative historical interpretations for our own good.

Mr Koo then ran afoul of the twin problems of fact-selection and 
interpretation in presenting his version of our history.

Firstly, Mr Koos factually correct account of the Separation of Singapore 
from Malaysia is incomplete. He seemed unaware of the fierce resentment 
aroused by the oppositional politics of the PAP in the Federal 
Parliament. As Tunku Abdul Rahman saw it, merger failed because the PAP 
Government was a 'State Government that has ceased to give even a measure 
of loyalty to the Central Government' (Separation Announcement, 9 August 
1965). The Tunkus perception of the PAPs responsibility for the 
Separation is unflattering, but many Malaysians share his sentiments 
nonetheless.

This is not the place to debate whether the Tunku or Mr Koo is more 
right. The example simply highlights the folly of complacency in the face 
of incomplete knowledge. Unless we are sensitive to alternative 
interpretations of the Separation, we may inadvertently damage relations 
with our neighbour by our depiction of the events of that period.

Secondly, Mr Koos interpretation of the PAP Governments policies as 
necessary begs the questions: which policies; and what degree of 
necessity? Reasonable persons may assess complex issues differently.

Mr Koo claimed that a single history based on historical facts is the 
very basis for national solidarity. He erred in ignoring the crucial 
questions: what set of facts; and whose interpretation? It is instructive 
that South Africa has courageously chosen to teach its children how to 
think historically by presenting different historical accounts rather 
than indoctrinating them in an official black history (ST, Aug 14).

Mr Koo rightly said that a society with no sense of history will not 
endure. But a society unable to think historically can have no sense of 
history. Lacking Mr Koos confidence in the sufficiency of one single 
history, I contend that the development of historical thinking requires 
us to confront different historical interpretations and learn to sieve 
important facts from trivia and fiction. The propagation of only one 
historical account dulls the intellect and increases our susceptibility 
to political manipulation. It is not in our national interest.

[Ed: Mr Koo's letter is included here for reference.]


      AUG 17 1996                                  
      Let's teach our shared history based on facts
 
      I AGREE with Francis Chong Fu Shin (ST, Aug 10) that history
      is not just about the past, but more important, about the
      interpretation of the past. But that does not make all
      versions of the past equally valid.
 
      Some revisionist historians have claimed that the Holocaust,
      in which millions of Jews were killed, never took place.
      Others say Japanese aggression in Asia during the Pacific
      War was a legitimate attempt to liberate East Asia from the
      clutches of European colonialism. Surely these
      "interpretations" of history should be rejected not just now
      -- but for all time.
 
      Modern Singapore's history is short. The Japanese occupied
      Singapore for 3-1/2 years during World War II. Many
      civilians were massacred and many more perished. After the
      war, communist agitation and strikes wracked Singapore.
      After Singapore gained internal self-rule under a PAP
      government in 1959, the communists broke with the PAP,
      leaving the non-communists in the PAP government to fight a
      life-and-death struggle against them for the hearts and
      minds of the people.
 
      In September 1963, Singapore gained independence as a state
      in Malaysia. But there was basic disagreement with the
      central government in Kuala Lumpur over the fundamental
      issue of equal citizenship rights for all races in Malaysia,
      including Singapore. This led to conflicts.
      Externally-instigated race riots broke out twice in
      Singapore in 1964.
 
      Many Chinese and Malays were killed. Race relations in
      Malaysia became polarised between Malays and non-Malays.
      Finally, on Aug 9, 1965, Singapore was ejected from the
      Federation.
 
      After separation from Malaysia, the leaders and people of
      Singapore had to fight many dire threats to the island's
      security, economy and social cohesion. The people rallied
      behind the Government in implementing necessary but tough
      policies. Eventually, these policies made Singapore the most
      competitive economy in the world and one of the fastest
      growing. In one generation, Singaporeans have transformed
      our country into a safe, orderly and prosperous country --
      one in which every citizen has a stake and which every
      citizen is proud to defend. These are documented historical
      facts. What "alternative historical account" of these facts
      does Mr Chong propose? Why should we be unable to teach this
      history to Singaporeans?
 
      Mr Chong criticises "the reduction of history into an
      instrument to build solidarity". A shared history based on
      historical facts is the very basis for national solidarity
      in every nation. A society with no sense of history will not
      endure. KOO TSAI KEE (The writer is an MP for Tanjong Pagar
      GRC)