Maodee writes about a discussion held in a Singapore Studies class about where the history of Singapore begins:

With the discussion I went through today in class, i believe that singapore history should start from around 1959, when we first gain our first self right to government. Why do I say that?

In 1819, our ancestors came from various different parts of the world to settle down here because for war poverty etc in their countries. From 1819 onwards, at least I believe they were still migrants under the British rule. It was then until the japanese occupation that led to the idea of home. So I believe the point when we fully gai n and fought for our independence, that momement is when our history actually started if you are looking at history of Singapore from a Singapore perspective. But if you are looking at a British colonial setting that would be 1819.

It’s an interesting point of view, because if you’re like me and you’ve gone through the “standard” history texts, our secondary school history accounts begin talking about Singapore history when Raffles landed on our shores and politicked his way into establishing a trade presence in here in 1819. So that’s the norm when talking about the History of Singapore – although in the past decade there has been more awareness of a pre-Raffles history of Singapore from archaeological evidence of a 14th-century settlement with cultural influences from Sumatra, India and China.

The conventional understanding of Singapore history is the chronological story of Singapore: The Location; and here, Maodee contends that any discourse about Singapore’s history should be begin in 1959, when Singapore: The Nation State first began to make its presence.

What do you think? Do you think the history of Singapore should begin in 1959? Or is there more to the word “history” that we’re missing? I have my own opinions, but for now I’d just like to present the post as is and hear some comments.

Read the full post here.