NATIONAL UNIVERSITY OF SINGAPORE

Essay 1: Choosing a Starting Date for Singapores History

SSA2211: Evolution of a Global City State
KANG BO HAN ABRAHAM (U090023J) Tutorial Group E3, Tutor: Han Ming Guang Word Count: 1475

(Note to marker: my current version of Microsoft Word does not allow me to do Footnotes. Apologize for the references section as there was no other option)

Good day Your Honor, members of the court, ladies and gentlemen. The jury shall now present its findings to the court. In the words of William Lund1, We study the past to understand the present; we understand the present to guide the future. How then can we guide our future, if we do not fully understand our past? Both the defense and the prosecution have presented compelling arguments, but neither side has brought up the importance of studying history. The purpose of history cannot be undervalued in this case. Firstly, we believe that history should help us understand our people2a, and our society2b; how changes in the world around us shaped the community that we currently live in2c, and why certain things function the way they do2d. Secondly, history should provide us a common identity2e, something that every citizen can look to in times of division and conflict, something that binds us as a nation. In order to reach a just and fair verdict, we contrasted each piece of evidence against the previously mentioned purposes of history in order to obtain a scale of usefulness of each individual piece of evidence with regard to understanding the present-day Singapore. It is of little doubt that there was indeed a thriving settlement before 1819, however, would such knowledge have any impact in the way we see society today? Overall, the jury finds that the presence of the settlement post 1299 seems to replicate the situation modern Singapore is inhighly dependent on trade and cosmopolitan. The various archaeological findings all point towards the main point that the prosecution is trying to makethe fact that Singapore had a history before 18193. The evidence produced by the Detectives and the CSI point to a prospering trade settlement prior to Raffles arrival in 1819. However, just how much of this has an impact on the way we view modern Singapore today? The evidence from the two expert sources seems to be split into two distinct categories, namely, archaeological and written4. How do each of these categories stack up against our purposes of history scale? Upon examination of the archaeological findings, the jury concludes that these ancient artifacts that have been found do provide us a link with which we can understand where our forefathers came from, especially the ceramics, which give a rough timeline to when and where our forefathers came from5 (for the Chinese).

The Sejarah Melayu, while now seen to be a book of myths, has drawn many parallels with other historical texts, such as the Suma Oriental and Yuanshi6, which all support the manner by which Singapore was described. The main focus however, has to be on the significance of the evidence in light of present day understanding of history. Lets for a second, assume that there was no pre-1819 trading settlement on Singapore. Would this new twist in our history at all alter the way that Singapore today is perceived? If the answer is no, then perhaps the evidence presented by the detectives and the CSI are not relevant to understanding modern Singapore. As with the mythological nature of the Sejarah Melayu, does the pre-1819 history of Singapore correspond to a history that we do not need? Or can trinkets of this forgotten past still serve to highlight important lessons for present day Singapore? With this in mind, the jury finds that the evidence presented does in fact parallel the case of the Sejarah Melayu, where although thought to be useless historically, still influences the way that modern times are viewed. Hence, on the charge of relevance to present-day Singapore, we find the evidence GUILTY.

The jury finds the defense points very valid. The defense argues that Raffles legacy and influence far exceeds Seri Teri Buanas, while arguing that Seri Teri Buana did not even found Singapore, but was rather haphazardly stumbled upon this port city on his travels7. They also strongly disagree with the notion that the adoption of a 1819 start date was to curry favors with any other nation, such as the British, or the Malay States around Singapore8. It is notable that the defense accepts that a pre-1819 settlement did exist on Singapore, however, they disagree that it has any relevance or significance to understanding the present. The defense roots of Raffles as the founding father of Singapore, claiming that unlike previous rulers, he stayed to nurture the nation9. The most valid point would come from the aspect of social memory. Like many Singaporeans, the jury has been educated by the same system conveyed the same Singapore Story to each Singaporean, thus giving us a common identity, and history to identify with10. What the jury would like this court to consider; is to view each defense argument in light of its motivations. We find that the consistent attempts to play down any prosecution argument without giving a suitable counter argument. We understand that it is the prosecution that must prove beyond a reasonable doubt the validity of the change of dates, but the defense harping on the same points over

and over again, does not the least impress us. That said, the jury finds the defense points substantial and compelling, since most of their points seem to draw attention from the social memory point of view. The jury finds that both the defense and the prosecution have given valid points using similar evidence. However, we find that while the prosecution labors to win the case on hard truths, the defense seems to strive to simply maintain the continuity of the current situation by relying on emotional arguments, sorely lacking in scientific and academic viewpoints.

This decision has come as a hard one, Your Honor, simply because the jury feels that both the emotional ties to history as well as the academic view of it are equally important and should be considered when making a milestone decision such as this. Our hearts tell us to favor the defense, and yet our minds tell us otherwise. In China, history stretches thousands of years, yet the history of China that we know today simply begins with Qin Shi Huangs reign11. So too the United States of America, whose students commonly study two types of history, natural and modern12, where modern history only starts with the American Revolution. Sadly, history is remembered not for the common man, but for great men, men who fought and won battles against all odds, men who ruled with iron fists, uniting vast nations, it is remembered for great civilizations, not for small seaside towns. History as we know it today; is not the study of society, but of great societies, not of man, but of great men. Its the little people that too often get forgotten along the way. The little people that make great empires run like clockwork, the little people that make great men, great. Where would we be today, without these little people, these, seemingly unimportant souls who happened to chance upon our island and left some sort of mark? Seri Teri Buana came to Singaporeor Temasek as it was then known, and he left his mark. Since the defense accepts that there was a pre-existing settlement in Singapore prior to Raffles arrival, then the jury concludes that they should have no issues accepting the change in start date of Singapores history. However, the jury feels that the emotional ties to specific points in history cannot be understated and simply tossed aside. Therefore, this jury recommends that Singapores history be split into 2 distinct portions, Ancient History, beginning in 1299, and Modern History, which begins in 1819. Both sets of histories are equally important and should be treated as such. In all honesty, this jury finds that both sets of histories should be emphasized and viewed in equal standing. Without the existing settlement left behind by Seri Teri Buana, Raffles would probably not have noticed this little red

dot in the first place, and without Raffles, we might still be lagging behind our geographical neighbors today. Intertwined and dependent, thats history and thats how it should be viewed.

References
1. 2. Why Cultural Historical Heritage is so Important? http://www.culturalheritage.net.au/why2.html American Historical Association, Why Study History by Peter N. Stearns, 1998. [2a-2e are referenced from this site] http://www.historians.org/pubs/free/WhyStudyHistory.htm 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. Prosecution Team 1 Report (Part A) Consolidated CSI Reports & Detective Reports (List of Evidences) Consolidated CSI Reports (Ceramics Section) Consolidated Detective Reports (Serajah Melayu) Defense Teams Rebuttal of Prosecutions Claims Defense Teams Rebuttal of Prosecutions Claims Defense Teams Rebuttal of Prosecutions Claims

10. Defense Teams Rebuttal of Prosecutions Claims 11. History of China http://www-chaos.umd.edu/history/toc.html 12. History of the United States of America
Morris. Richard, ed. Encyclopedia of American History (7th ed. 1996)