To carry on a little with the historical theme, what would you say if a 7-year-old asked you this question:
When did Singapore start?
I'm glad the boy is asking about this now, before he gets programmed into thinking that Singapore 'started' in a certain year.
What did I tell him? To summarise:
1. No one really knows when any place 'started'.
2. Singapore was around long before people called it 'Singapore'.
3. The British came along and 'owned' Singapore for some time.
4. Then, Singapore didn't want to belong to anyone else so we became our 'own' country.
I am determined that he grows up knowing that Singapore did not 'start' with Raffles' arrival, and I hope he will have good (and polite) 'arguments' with any teacher who dares tell him otherwise. When I was in primary school, we did history and geography, which were really fun, and I don't know why they dropped these 2 subjects from the primary curriculum. In my school, we did history in our Mother Tongue language which actually made Chinese more interesting for me. But the most interesting part, of course, was all the stuff about Sang Nila Utama, Temasek, Srivijaya, Majapahit, etc.
Now that they are no longer taught in school, I hope the re-opened SHM (in December, I hear) will feature some of these pre-colonial aspects of our history. After all, procelain, glass, beads, etc, etc, have been unearthed and dated as far back as the 14th century. Which proves beyond doubt that there was a 'Singapore' long before Raffles was even born, and it wasn't just an island with a few fishermen. And what's the point of unearthing shards and all and not showing us at least some of them, and 're-constructing' Singaporeans' notion of their own history?
Which brings me to the report about the discovery and re-burying of (the colonial) Fort Tanjong Katong. This fort, where Katong Park is, was built, buried (during the British time), further buried (during the East Coast land reclamation), discovered (2001), then re-buried. Wormie has written about some concerns with regard to this. I also think it's a waste to just re-bury it. To quote the man who was the 2001 discoverer, and who also happens to be the president of the Restroom Association of Singapore (now you know who to direct your complaints to!):
'They go to all the trouble to dig it up and then instead of making some kind of monument out of it, they put everything back.'
This other perspective is interesting, though, from Mr Kwa Chong Guan, adjunct assoc prof at NUS:
'We don't have to dig everything up. It's okay to leave some puzzles for the next generation to solve, just as long as we mark the place and remember the fort is there.'
Well, the authorities have to decide on that, and for me, history education, like charity and other things, is going to begin at home. And that is certainly more worthwhile than this, which isn't related to history or anything but I just read it in the papers yesterday. Toddlers signing up for MBA courses (12 subjects, including maths, English, economics, natural science and business sense) indeed. Worse than when we were studying for our B.A. - 'only' 3 subjects. You don't know whether to laugh or cry.
One mother said this:
'My five year old cries throughout classes such as economics and mass communications as they are too young to understand them.'
Aiyoh, this mum. Who asked her to send her 5-year-old to this type of course?!
When did Singapore start?
I'm glad the boy is asking about this now, before he gets programmed into thinking that Singapore 'started' in a certain year.
What did I tell him? To summarise:
1. No one really knows when any place 'started'.
2. Singapore was around long before people called it 'Singapore'.
3. The British came along and 'owned' Singapore for some time.
4. Then, Singapore didn't want to belong to anyone else so we became our 'own' country.
I am determined that he grows up knowing that Singapore did not 'start' with Raffles' arrival, and I hope he will have good (and polite) 'arguments' with any teacher who dares tell him otherwise. When I was in primary school, we did history and geography, which were really fun, and I don't know why they dropped these 2 subjects from the primary curriculum. In my school, we did history in our Mother Tongue language which actually made Chinese more interesting for me. But the most interesting part, of course, was all the stuff about Sang Nila Utama, Temasek, Srivijaya, Majapahit, etc.
Now that they are no longer taught in school, I hope the re-opened SHM (in December, I hear) will feature some of these pre-colonial aspects of our history. After all, procelain, glass, beads, etc, etc, have been unearthed and dated as far back as the 14th century. Which proves beyond doubt that there was a 'Singapore' long before Raffles was even born, and it wasn't just an island with a few fishermen. And what's the point of unearthing shards and all and not showing us at least some of them, and 're-constructing' Singaporeans' notion of their own history?
Which brings me to the report about the discovery and re-burying of (the colonial) Fort Tanjong Katong. This fort, where Katong Park is, was built, buried (during the British time), further buried (during the East Coast land reclamation), discovered (2001), then re-buried. Wormie has written about some concerns with regard to this. I also think it's a waste to just re-bury it. To quote the man who was the 2001 discoverer, and who also happens to be the president of the Restroom Association of Singapore (now you know who to direct your complaints to!):
'They go to all the trouble to dig it up and then instead of making some kind of monument out of it, they put everything back.'
This other perspective is interesting, though, from Mr Kwa Chong Guan, adjunct assoc prof at NUS:
'We don't have to dig everything up. It's okay to leave some puzzles for the next generation to solve, just as long as we mark the place and remember the fort is there.'
Well, the authorities have to decide on that, and for me, history education, like charity and other things, is going to begin at home. And that is certainly more worthwhile than this, which isn't related to history or anything but I just read it in the papers yesterday. Toddlers signing up for MBA courses (12 subjects, including maths, English, economics, natural science and business sense) indeed. Worse than when we were studying for our B.A. - 'only' 3 subjects. You don't know whether to laugh or cry.
One mother said this:
'My five year old cries throughout classes such as economics and mass communications as they are too young to understand them.'
Aiyoh, this mum. Who asked her to send her 5-year-old to this type of course?!
Comments