History's many shades of grey

An excellent article by Tan Tai Yong on the treatment of our history as we approach the big 50.

As our understanding of the present is inextricably tied to our own strongly held beliefs of historical 'facts', we have to adopt a nuanced approach to our treatment of events and characters of the past. Much has been said of grand PAP coverup to drown out the dissident voices that continue to haunt the current establishment. The reactions to MDA's decision to slap Tan Pin Pin's documentary, To Singapore With Love, with a Not Allowed for all Rating (NAR), demonstrates just how strong that desire is - one that wishes to have access to all historical accounts, regardless of their veracity.

Is there value in preserving a singular narrative of our past, at all political cost? I think not, and I optimistically do not think the think-tanks in white wish this to be. There should be some flexibility to stretch our understanding of a single narrative, without feeling the need to deviate to every controversial alternative account like it was 'bible truth'. Life, complex as it is, cannot be answered with single narrative or its antithetical other, but the truth lies surely somewhere in middle, buried deep in grey.

History's many shades of grey

By Tan Tai Yong For The Straits Times

Why is history important? Let me begin by asking another question: After 50 years of nationhood, how well do Singapore citizens know their country's history? In attempting to answer this question, I should make a distinction between historical literacy and historical consciousness.

Put crudely, the first is knowing what; the second, knowing why.

Most Singaporeans have a decent degree of historical literacy. They have some grasp of historical information and understand the key features of our country's history. Historical literacy does not require a personal meaning attributable to the past.

To be historically conscious is to be able to say what the past means to us, as individuals and as a community.

So, what are the attributes of historical consciousness?

First, historical consciousness refers to the ability to draw personal and social relevance from history.

Second, historical consciousness is not simply an intuitive feeling. It is a critical process. History is a contested terrain - it can polarise as much as unify. In this regard, sound historical consciousness requires intellectual rigour and honesty.

More controversially, to allow for deeper understanding, I argue that we must pluralise our history. We must show history in its full complexity. But plurality is not the same as duality, where there are only two sides to the argument: with one right and the other wrong.
Historians are constantly pushing the boundaries of historical knowledge. In the process, they enhance our understanding of historical change through new interpretations. These can be brought about by fresh analyses or the use of new evidence. Such efforts at revising history should be welcomed.

For example, in Singapore history, the left wing has been portrayed as a political force during the tumultuous 1950s, seeking to effect political change through militant action. It was committed to a political ideology and outcome that, if they had come to pass, would have taken Singapore down a very different road.

The People's Action Party took the left wing on and was able to "ride the communist tiger" rather than end up in its stomach. In the political contest that ensued, one group eventually defeated the other.

This narrative is correct insofar as it gives a factual account of the political events of that period.

However, we would have a better appreciation of the challenges and complexities of the time if we were able to understand the intricate dynamics of the left-wing movement and the various groups that came together to pursue similar goals, sometimes with different strategies, as well the international and local factors that shaped their world views and politics.

In the past 10 years or so, there have already been some studies that seek to explain these - political memoirs, as well as books commemorating pivotal events such as Operation Coldstore. They are positioned, perhaps deliberately provocatively, as being "alternative or revisionist history".

In my view, some of these accounts can be helpful in providing a more nuanced understanding of Singapore's past.

While these additional views do not necessarily change the fundamental storyline, they can certainly add texture to make the narrative more complete and interesting.

One point worth repeating is that pluralising history should mean going beyond the realm of politics. We should have more accounts of social, cultural and community level histories, to add layers to the national narrative.

For example, few people know that the hawker centre at Tiong Bahru was probably the first such centre to be paid for by the hawkers themselves.

In a grand collective action, these men, who were illegal or itinerant hawkers previously, got together, negotiated with the Government and raised an infrastructure that was later redeveloped into the two-storey building seen along Seng Poh Road today.

This is not a piece of history we find readily in our history books, or even on the signs in front of the market, but it is a bona fide Singaporean story.

This is what pluralism looks like.

As we develop a more nuanced and textured approach to our historical narratives, these efforts must be underpinned by rigorous research and intellectual honesty.

Good, responsible history will enable Singapore citizens to appreciate complexity without succumbing to propaganda. Sound historical consciousness should be sustained by curiosity rather than certainty; it should be motivated by the desire to understand rather than the intention to pass judgment. This can be constructive for building national identity and belonging.

Finally, historical consciousness should not be regarded as a mere backward-looking process.

Retrospective reflection should lead one to draw conclusions from the past that might be helpful to plans for the future.

The best way to build historical consciousness is to instil it at a personal level, grow it organically. This can be done in schools but also through self-discovery in family and community efforts.

Each of us needs to know our country through grandfather stories. At the same time, there should always be space for personal recollections and individual reflections that are not strictly historical studies.

These can be essential elements for a larger, multifaceted story that is the history of Singapore.

The writer is a Nominated Member of Parliament. He is Vice-Provost (Student Life) and director of the Institute of South Asian Studies at the National University of Singapore.
stopinion@sph.com.sg

The Serangoon Road Conundrum

A stormy riot, on an equally rain-soaked Sunday night along a routinely bustling strip of Singapore’s Little India, has captured the world’s attention.  The trigger, a purportedly drunken foreign worker of Indian descent was mowed over by a bus ferrying other workers back to their dormitory.  What sparked the violent scenes of vehicle pelting and assaults requires answers that possibly no inquiry can ever fully surface.

Was this an alcohol-induced incident, fueled by a rowdy mob packed within a two km stretch of road enveloped by ethnic shops, restaurants and temples? Anyone who has taken a stroll down Serangoon road on any given Sunday evening would witness a scene of collective drinking along pathways and on any available patch of grass. As pointed out by Alex Au of Yawning Bread, “at their low wages, they can’t afford to spend their leisure time in commercial establishments like cafes and restaurant”. Alex also offers an interesting treatise on how a confluence of spatial features and bad weather provided the ideal backdrop for the eruption of violence.

Explaining how usually rational individual behave during an irrational situation is too broad and complex to discuss definitively. I would like to however touch on a divisive subject that was alluded to in discussions on social media, and featured prominently in Alex’s aforementioned blog post; the role of disruptive policing (termed ‘active’ policing by Alex) and the perception of authorities manifested in first responders.

Anyone who was once a self-respecting pubescent teenager would recount at some point in their life running into the scope of a patrolling police officer. Be it loitering at a void deck late at night, or sneaking that illegal cigarette in a public playground. To some this is a rare occurrence, but to others that perhaps fit a deeply engraved profile of a typical troublemaker (you know who you are), this tends to happen more often than not.

Alex shares that such active or disruptive policing happens regularly “in the void decks and alleyways of Little India, freely issuing summonses and intrusively asking for identification. Workers see this as harassment. It is the exact opposite of what it takes to build trust between the police and communities”.

Now is this generally a bad thing?  Disruptive policing is a key component of the law-enforcement strategy modeled under Intelligence-Led Policing. In a sentence, this technique seeks to utilize the crime deterrent effect generated by a highly visible, regular and tangible police presence, to reduce crime in an identified crime hot area.

To illustrate its application, a scenario could be an increase of crime in a neighbourhood littered with street walkers and drug dealers. Active and visible police cars patrolling the streets could possibly deter the would-be clients from loitering in the vicinity, resulting in a decrease in the attractiveness of the area for crime.  Drawing back to the situation along Little India, perhaps the right type of disruptive policing would involve the visible presence of a credible deterrent, in the form of regular police officers and not auxiliary officers and the token NS-men or two.

The conduct of these additional patrols is as important as their numbers. Unlike the example of street walkers and soliciting clients, the purpose is not to displace our South Asian temporary residents. Our boys in blue have to be seen as being equally interested in maintaining a conducive and safe space for Singaporeans and Foreigners alike. This is the real challenge.

There are two events that suggest this animosity between our South Asian workers and enforcement authorities are, for lack of a better word, strained. Symbolically, the flipping and torching of police vehicles and ambulances offers a clear target of frustrations. Did they believe the first responders were arrived to assist their pinned compatriot, or were they there to merely engage in crowd control and to sweep the incident into non-existence? Perhaps there are other anecdotal incidents that fuels this perception.

The other (non) event is the conspicuous lack of acts of looting. Looting often goes hand-in-hand with spontaneous riots.  Flash back to the August 2011 London riots, much of the incidents coincided with opportunistic looting of mobile phone shops, restaurants and other retailers along the British High Streets. Similarly to what I read now, commentary back then pinned the blame on a disenfranchised minority group that were concentrated in areas of relatively high deprivation.

Now taking these two points together, it becomes harder to accept the online speculation that the ‘real’ reasons for the riots were the manifestation of the traditional class-divide tension rooted in poverty, employment frustrations, and general over-crowding.  As commenters now claim that attempts at painting the event as alcohol-driven is merely engaging in scapegoating, it would over-generalising to suggested a micro event was fuelled primarily by marco socio-spatial factors; without any empirical proof of course.  

To conclude, from a purely speculative assessment, understanding the interaction/relationship between our foreign workers and the people that share their spaces is a more important priority than let’s say a re-look at our immigration policy. Otherwise it seems counterintuitive to claim to be concerned for the welfare of this sub-group, and at the same time be knee-jerked into proposing solutions that only seek to limit their opportunities to make a decent living for themselves.

Maximum Security Nation: Overeaction is Complacency's Ugly Cousin

I had previously written on the responsibilities of government’s and security agencies’ responsibility in maintaining a balance between being protective and intrusive. In lieu of Mas Selamat’s escape from the Whitley Road Detention Centre, I had argued that perhaps the personnel, those whom were empowered with custodial responsibilities, were found lacking on the latter front. I had also posited that a deeply-rooted culture of disempowerment and compartmental thinking has crippled to an extent the effectiveness of line-staff in dealing with contingencies effectively.

More recently, two men on robbery with hurt charges attempted an unsuccessful but audacious flight from custody whilst in remand at a lock-up in the Subordinate Court. Comparisons to the great “toilet break” by Mas Selamat are too tempting to resist but I shall nonetheless try. I would however like to remark on the reaction by authorities.

As the two assailants were brought back to answer to additional charges of assault and escape from legal custody, they were flanked by a proportionately excessive number (10) of policemen. In addition, police said that immediately after the incident, several measures were taken to enhance the security at the Subordinate Courts’ lock-ups (no details).

As a concerned citizen, I expect and even demand that adequate measures are taken to ensure our safety, be it from hardline terrorists all the way down to petty crime felons. However, I hope the need to appease such concerns in a perceptible manner are not clouding the responses of the authorities.

I do not wish to see the day when, out of fear of embarrassment from another potential flight from custody, all persons held under police remand are treated like inmates at a maximum security facility. The World Consumer Rights’ Day protesters would surely agree. The temptation is however there, as understandably the Government is jittery over public perception following the immensely damaging and embarrassing incident of Mas Selamat’s escape.

Security and law enforcement personnel serve two primary purposes; prevention and reaction. No government or agency in the world can lay claim to being able to prevent acts of terrorism, crime, corruption, and so on, 100 percent of the time. Mistakes can happen and often do. The litmus test of governmental and societal resilience is in the response, the reaction. Over-reaction sometimes can be more damaging than doing nothing at all.

JI Detainee Escapes: State Not Intrusive Enough?

The headline read “JI detainee Mas Selamat Kastari escapes from Singapore detention centre” and my jaw dropped to the floor.

When I wrote about the recent arrests of 2 individuals for habouring plans to conduct acts of terrorism, I discussed the difference between being protective and intrusive. The argument was of course that the Singapore government had to adopt a stance dictated by the ideals of the former. Unfortunately, given the shocking circumstances which has resulted in a massive manhunt for a dangerous former terror cell leader, I wonder if our protectors are doing a decent enough job of being intrusive.

Surely every intrusive means of surveillance and monitoring should have been dedicated to keeping real threats to society safely behind lock and key. I am sure no civil libertarian could argue against that.

Minister Wong sure has some explaining to do. First of which is how a limping middle-aged man could escape from an ISD run facility?

A Shared Legacy: Suharto and Lee

As rightfully observed by The Observer, the ailing former Indonesian President Suharto was a dictator. Under his reign, he oversaw communist mass-killings, suppressed secessionist attempts, outlawed civil activism and was unapologetic about it all. Why? Well first and foremost, such moves were dubbed necessary for economic development. Well, the Asian financial crisis came along and hit Indonesia very hard. Bailouts from international monetary were suspectedly mismanaged or even embezzled. Losing the veneer of economic progress and stability, another ‘unchallenged’ reelection of Suharto broke the proverbial camel’s back.

Recently, MM Lee has once again spoken of his friendship with the former Indonesian ruler. He however chooses to remember the man for the good he has done rather then the ‘missteps’ or ‘hard decisions’ made during trying times.

Lee owed much of Singapore’s and ASEAN’s stability to his similarly strong-armed counterpart. His feelings of gratitude are therefore understandable, and not surprising. This is because they in fact share more than common histories; they also share a common legacy.

Hence I couldn’t help but wonder whether Lee’s most recent character defensive of Suharto is actually a personal confession of his own.

“Yes, there was corruption. Yes, he gave favours to his family and his friends…But there was real growth and real progress. I think the people of Indonesia are lucky.” MM Lee on Suharto

With his own mortality firmly in the foreground, is this statement a veiled self-reflection on his own tenor? Or am I over-reading it?

MOE’s Latest Alumnus

I agree in principle (pardon the pun) with Rana’s assessment that “on the whole, Singapore has done well with Tharman Shanmugaratnam as education minister."

However, I couldn’t help but feel bothered by his emphasis on Institutions of Higher Learning (IHLs) as the only marker of success. To be fair to Rana, he qualified that falling University rankings and the ability (or lack thereof) to attract top colleges here, did not reflect too badly on Tharman’s tenure.

And to be fairer to Rana, who the hell assigned me to mark his work? But surely the report card of our education system can’t possibly be assessed with the grading of a single subject (I promise the puns stop here).

I myself am an unfortunate product of an inflexible education system, so I have many grievances with the system I grew up with. However, I do like the direction Tharman has taken, especially with regards to the primary and secondary levels – the very foundations for our grey matter development.

Of course, I pity the parents caught in the middle of all the education policy changes (and all the new textbooks to buy and dump). But our children will ultimately be the beneficiaries of the new flexibility that has been injected into the system. I shan’t go through the changes that have been made as many before me have already done an extensive review. The best examples are here and here.

But my interest lies elsewhere. When news broke of Tharman’s imminent relinquishment of his Education Minister post to take up the Finance Minister role he was so obviously groomed for, my first thought was not on his contributions to the education system. I see this portfolio change as a sign of more things to come....

Dare I say it? Prime Minister Tharman anyone?

Standing Up for Burma, Sitting Down for Myanmar

What better way to start off this fledgling blog than to write a short random piece inspired by recent events surrounding violent crackdowns in Myanmar, resulting global condemnation, and the concluding ASEAN summit.

My approach to this topic is a little more philosophical than socio-political, hence the seemingly illogical title of this post. For me, “Myanmar” represents the cold hard realities of modern-day national coexistence - a world swimming chin-deep in paradoxes. “Burma” on the other hand carries with it all the old world charms and romantic qualities of an age of innocence lost to modern-day excesses.

Such characterizations require neither deep nor accurate appreciation for the socio-political nuances of the country, as human beings are seldom moved by details but rather ideas. And that’s what they ultimately are, words that carry a collectively perceived meaning, stretched from an imperfect idea.

When beliefs clash with realities, when two incompatible cognitions meet, when Burma and Myanmar collide, we are left with the uncomfortable task of deciding whether we stand…. or sit.

What driving forces ultimately compel world leaders, local parliamentarians, opposition leaders, concerned citizens, to stand or sit depends on how each resolves their beliefs and actions.

What do we do when we want to stand up for “Burma”, yet at the same time, sit in fear of the metaphorical “Myanmar”?

What do we do with our desires to uphold the civil liberties of others, whilst protecting our own?

Singaporeans would undoubtedly appreciate the ever present cognitive dissonance involved. Compelling the desire to stand up may be, but other dominant thoughts justify inaction. Every no-show is evidence of our concerns. Every arrest is confirmation of our fears.

I shall leave it at that. A brief window into our world, and my thoughts. Perhaps I shall create a folder for my incoherent thoughts in order to separate my conflicting selves. Where this first post will go? Im not sure… im still sitting on the fence.