S'pore history began long before Raffles
-
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 -
well i'm pleased that we have our own history..
-
who cares
-
I am pleased we have a much longer history than what we have been taught so far.
-
then sang nila utama leh?
-
got mah i got embrace sang nila utama, they say it's a myth bit i still yong bao
-
I'm ok with Raffles. He was a true gentleman, very ideological (too ideological at times) and fighting against the slave trade. My friend that studies history told me that he only visited S'pore on 3 occassions. i was quite surprised to hear that.
-
who cares? my ancestors were from china not tamasek or whatever.
-
the son of knn u tama de lor..Originally posted by FireIce:then sang nila utama leh?
-
u see because we prefer ang-moh support instead of the crappy malay history thats why we prefer stamford raffles..Originally posted by pearlie27: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 -
We have found historical evidence that Singapore goes further back than Raffles, but for one reason or another, Singapore prefers to say that Singapore's history started with Raffles.
-
It is not a choice of preferences, it is a matter of knowledge. Personally, I never knew there is much history of singapore before raffles. my teachers never taught me.Originally posted by ndmmxiaomayi:We have found historical evidence that Singapore goes further back than Raffles, but for one reason or another, Singapore prefers to say that Singapore's history started with Raffles. and lky only want history of independence to be taught so that we are grateful to pap.
do we not have true blood historian who do not link history with politics?
-
Singapore's history before Raffles is perhaps just too different from what we've been taught in the schools for most people to imagine. Also, our present is much more intricately linked to our post-Raffles history rather than to what came before that. Hence it's still more relevant to emphasise on Singapore's colonial past rather than previous eras.
-
There is a political aspect to it....history before Raffles gives Indonesia a certain hold over Singapore. After all, some have argued that the treaty between Raffles and Tengku Long might not be valid if Temasek had once belonged to the Majapahit Empire based in Java.
-
Answer to do we not have true blood historian who do not link history with politics?Originally posted by sgdiehard:It is not a choice of preferences, it is a matter of knowledge. Personally, I never knew there is much history of singapore before raffles. my teachers never taught me. and lky only want history of independence to be taught so that we are grateful to pap.
do we not have true blood historian who do not link history with politics? 
Don't know. -
good pointOriginally posted by oxford mushroom:There is a political aspect to it....history before Raffles gives Indonesia a certain hold over Singapore. -
He's more interested in Singapore for profits larOriginally posted by ben1xy:I'm ok with Raffles. He was a true gentleman, very ideological (too ideological at times) and fighting against the slave trade. My friend that studies history told me that he only visited S'pore on 3 occassions. i was quite surprised to hear that.
He's not really the guy who brought Singapore up...it's more of his colleagues such as William Farquahar and Sir Crawfurd... -
To begin with.. err Raffles is supposed to be the Father of Modern Singapore.
Nowhere in our history books did they say Singapore has no history before Raffles. I mean, Singapore is not some deserted island that Raffles stumbled on. There were people living here! There was even a Temenggong (Chieftain) - which means it is part of another empire - for Raffles to negotiate with.
The problem lies not in recognising Raffles' contributions to Singapore, but in the way it is taught to students to emphasize ONLY the economic growth of Singapore (not its cultural, chronological history) -
cant imagine having a Farquhar place <-- the pronounciation always tickles meOriginally posted by deathscythe99:He's more interested in Singapore for profits lar
He's not really the guy who brought Singapore up...it's more of his colleagues such as William Farquahar and Sir Crawfurd... -
speakin of which .. Raffles dies quite young right?
-
i am very sure we have some civilisation before raffles right?
other than sang nila utama seeing a lion story....anymore legends abt y we r called singapore? -
your very existence started the moment your father's sperm swam towards your mother's egg. however, as far as you can remember, you probably found life more significant and vivid when your began school...the same goes for singapore's history, before the raffles 'founded' this harbour, temasek was only some outlying fishing village. anything interesting to document then? probably not....
-
Goodness, my exam on this is on the 28th.Originally posted by deathscythe99:He's more interested in Singapore for profits lar
He's not really the guy who brought Singapore up...it's more of his colleagues such as William Farquahar and Sir Crawfurd... Evolution of a Global City-State -
SHOOOriginally posted by why not??:yo wuddup guez whos bak yo mothafuc'kas itz fity cent in da hoodt' git yo ass upp heer shet yo moth n see muh mothafuc'kin pics widd ma nigga homiez o ah'm bustin uh cap in ya. fo shizzle ma nizzle.
/albums/b315/fiftycentz/45.jpg[/img]