 |
|||||||||||||
 |
|
 |
|||||||||||
 |
 |
||||||||||||
I'm very inspired to do something after reading an interesting mail about Singapore's (un)real history in the arts forum. I've copied a part of it here: ---------------------------------------- Hi Zai, I just wanted to write to say thanks for letting the list know about what you were writing about. It is a really important subject, and one which should receive more discussion that it normally does. As you know, the only reason why Singapore/Malaysia/Indonesia/Brunei are separate today was because of the 'carving up of the spheres of influence' by the Europeans in the 19th century - they did to the Malay archipelago a version of what they did in Africa, and in China to a certain extent. So to talk about the founding of Singapore as beginning in the colonial era is always really suspect because the setting up of Singapore was actually really traumatic because it necessitated the division of the Malay archipelago into different 'national' areas with the Anglo Dutch Treaty of 1824, and that put to a stop all the free moving of people from Sumatra to the Malay peninsula, and all around. I think it's really important to remember, as you point out, how complicated and weird this whole idea of Singapore's 'foundation' is. Thank you also for reminding us to question why Raffles is always accorded the status of "founder" of "modern Singapore" (what is 'modern' supposed to mean anyway?) It might also be pertinent to repeat here that Raffles was simply an emissary of the EIC, and not England herself, which means that like India, in the usual national history taught in schools we were founded by a business and not a nation or an individual anyway. And Raffles' move was also highly suspect, the Dutch were angered by his overstepping his boundaries, but only when the Europeans decided to resolve it among themselves with that treaty did Singapore become a "British" space. So this whole thing about being "founded", again, is problematic, as you point out - not to mention extremely forgetful that there were people around this place before the British decided to take advantage of a succession dispute. But if we were founded for business, what kind of business was this? Carl A. Trocki writes: "The founding of Singapore was a peripheral result of the India-China opium trade. For a full century, Singapore was 'Opium Central, Southeast Asia.' Opium was so common in nineteenth-century Singapore that most writers seem to take it for granted. If the kongsis were the pioneers of Chinese labour in Southeast Asia, then the British agency houses in Singapore were the pioneers of British colonial capitalism. The British came as merchants of opium, and in a very real sense we can best understand the British Empire east of Suez as of 1900 as essentially a drug cartel." (Carl A Trocki, "Opium and Empire", p.50) So in a way, a celebration of Raffles' founding of Singapore is simultaneously a celebration of how we were founded for drugs for money for a huge MNC. hahaha! Problematic indeed. Hope to see more posts from you on the subject Adeline PS Also I caught your screening of your films on Riau at the substation the other month; great job, keep it up. job, keep it up. Post a comment in response: |
| © 2002-2008. Blurty Journal. All rights reserved. |