by Andrew Cai

My proposed documentary would be entitled “Reminiscing the Singaporean Identity”. As suggested by the title, it aims to challenge Singaporeans to consider whether the Singapore’s identity is really constant and unchanging. The onslaught of globalization has led to the creation of an increasingly borderless world and foot-loose “global citizens”. Hence we need to re-interpret our past and set our identity from one that is inward-looking to one which welcomes change.

Singaporeans need to be open to the new wave of immigrants in order to harness their creativity and remain economically competitive in a global knowledge-economy. The current inward-looking history breeds nativism and acts as a barrier for the latter’s integration into society. Singaporeans moreover are increasingly travelling overseas and are exposed to foreign cultures. The traditional top-down and inward-looking history is also unable to help this group retain their identity as Singaporeans since their way of life overseas would be different from home Singaporeans.

Therefore, the focus should not on an unchanging Singaporean identity, but one which portrays social adaptation as the core of the identity. This is portrayed through a narration that reveals the historical continuity of change, and from there, to encourage Singaporeans to rethink our identity by showing the benefits of social acceptance and unity.

In order to demonstrate this, I suggest the following plots and approaches:

Period: From the founding of Singapore in 1819 to present times – The period will be divided under three themes, namely “Achieving Ethnic Unity”, “Multi-Racial Society” and “Singaporeans Overseas and Immigrants in Singapore”. Each theme will consist of two plots, an event of social unrest and a period of social reconstruction, for contrastive purpose of highlighting the need of social acceptance towards.

Plot: Under “Achieving Ethnic Unity”, the Hokkien-Teochew Riots in 1854 is one example to show the negative effects of social disunity. The riots were especially serious in the rural areas where one group formed the majority and the minority groups became victims of ethnic violence. With the advent of print culture, information began to flow across the sub-ethnic groups and created a new sense of identity that dissolved these sub-ethnic differences.

As Carl Trocki notes, “the enormous Chinese majority, which though divided by speech groups, place of origin and wealth, was now gaining coherence through the Chinese educational system.”[i] The role of the Singapore Chamber of Commerce in the lives of the “unified” Chinese community would be used as the plot for social construction.

The theme “Multi-Racial Society” uses the racial riots in 1964 as a watershed which separates the present from the old plural society. The identity of a people evolved to a next stage from being a communally ‘Chinese’, ‘Malay’, or ‘Indian’ to being a Chinese Singaporean or Malay Singaporean. Hence, the Singaporean identity embarked on a great transition from ethnic-based identity to a more inclusive identity, which values practice racial integration and tolerance.

The story of the racial riots also serves as a case-study to remind Singaporeans of the need to maintain constant communication and mutual acceptance in order to prevent social tension and upheaval. The narration could employ events such as Syed Jaafar Albar’s political rallies which sparked racial antagonism to highlight the need for greater communication and trust between groups.[ii]

Another useful story-line within this theme is the policies used in our social engineering, namely national service, the education system, and housing policies. Such policies reflect the evolution of a Singaporean identity from communalism to multi-racialism whereby the people of multi-racial Singapore share a common identity. This theme closes with how a racially united country allows Singapore to project her influence beyond the region into the world.

While some may argue from social memory that our racial integration is far from achieving unity across races, it has nevertheless achieved tremendous improvement since 1965. It cannot be denied that Singapore’s successes are the collective effort of Singaporeans regardless of race. This scene will be told by filming different races working together and visiting each other during the festive seasons.

The last theme “Singaporean Overseas and Immigrants in Singapore” aims to highlight that the identity of Singaporeans is constantly evolving even in today. Globalization unlocked new economic opportunities for Singaporeans and this inevitably lead many to work overseas. It could use the economic achievements of Singapore as a plot to link Singaporeans at home and overseas. The main emphasis would be on the shared pop culture and the unique linguistic (of the use of Singlish) similarities between these two groups of Singaporeans.

This theme also deals with the acceptance of new immigrants. Singapore achieved exemplary economic results which were only possible because of a united Singaporean population. From this point, the documentary would suggest our success will depend on our ability to absorb and synthesise knowledge through constant value innovation.[iii] Hence, there is a place for new immigrants in present-day Singapore society. After all, most of our forefathers also started as migrants to this land. This theme would be relatively shorter as the influx of new immigrants in the wake of globalization only began in the last decade.

Historical Approach: Focusing a grassroots lens onto the evolution of Singapore’s social history goes into the psyche of individual actors in history, hence providing the individual a sense of the human touch. The top-down approach which focuses on dominant figures and groups marginalized the voice of ordinary people.[iv] Furthermore, the histories of dominant figures are also usually perceived as ‘propaganda’ from the ruling political party. As such, top-down history is not well-received by the present-day generation of Singaporeans.

Second, viewing the social evolution of Singapore history from a grassroots lens enables us to track the gradual changes in attitude and perceptions of different ethnic groups towards one another towards. For example, after the racial riots in 1964, one could see the parallel history of the Chinese perception, the Malay perception towards one another, and how the mutual hostility softened gradually to become mutual tolerance and acceptance.

One of the strengths of looking at history from below is the ability to incorporate the voices of the contemporary generations, to weave their social memories into part of Singapore’s history, hence giving them a sense of place in Singapore’s history. In addition, this ability to incorporate new voices into the island’s history also signifies that the process is unfinished and on-going.

Finally, the grassroots-lens approach emphasizes on the development of a sense of attachment. This is especially important in an increasing foot-loose world where more Singaporeans are working overseas.

Hence, history has to be made relevant to Singaporeans by emphasizing on the things they recognize, such as Singlish, local popular culture and ways-of-life. When Singaporeans reside overseas, the ability to identify with the home culture and retain a sense of familiarity of Singapore is essential in maintaining an attachment Singapore. It is this sense of familiarity to Singapore amplified through the grassroots history which can help keep the hearts and minds of overseas Singaporeans at home. In contrast, a historical lens focusing on only political figures or distant heroes may not be useful at all.

In conclusion, this documentary focuses on a social history of Singapore. The traditional top-down, inward-looking history goes against the migrant roots of our national identity, and it certainly prevents us from accepting a new wave of immigration brought about by globalization. The use of a grassroots-lens approach moreover can help create shared bonds of attachment and familiarity to strengthen a Singaporean identity.

The author is a second-year History undergraduate in the Faculty of Arts and Social Sciences at NUS.

Bibliography

Lee Kuan Yew, Memoirs of Lee Kuan Yew, The Singapore Story. Abridged Editionm Singapore: Times Media Private Limited, 2000.

Ministry of Information and Arts. Renaissance Report: Culture and the Arts in Renaissance Singapore. Singapore: Grace Communications, 2000.

Trocki, Carl A., Singapore: Wealth, Power and the Culture of Control. London and New York: Routledge, 2006.

Yeoh, Brenda S. A., “Changing Landscape of Space in History Writing: A Selective Mapping of Writing on Singapore”, in New Terrains in Southeast Asian History, edited by Abu Talib and Tan Liok Ee. Ohio: Ohio University, 2003.

[i] Ibid. p.71.

[ii] Lee Kuan Yew, Memoirs of Lee Kuan Yew, The Singapore Story, Abridged Edition (Singapore: Times Media Private Limited, 2000), p. 288.

[iii] Ministry of Information and Arts, Renaissance City Report: Culture and the Arts in Renaissance Singapore (Singapore: Grace Communications, 2000), p. 31.

[iv] Brenda S.A. Yeoh, “Changing Landscape of Space in History Writing: A Selective Mapping of Writings on Singapore”, in New Terrains in Southeast Asian History, edited by Abu Talib and Tan Liok Ee (Ohio: Ohio University, 2003), p. 35.

Tags: singapore history, Singapore Story, singaporean identity

This entry was posted on Saturday, March 1st, 2008 at 3:40 am and is filed under Impressions | Conversations. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.