Studying Singapore's Past: C.M. Turnbull and the History of Modern Singapore

Chapter 4: The Limitations of Monolingual History

The Limitations of Monolingual History 87 4 ~ The Limitations of Monolingual History P.J. Thum Introduction THE HISTORIOGRAPHY OF SINGAPORE IS DOMINATED BY an elitist Englishlanguage nationalist narrative. It is an important perspective and central to Singaporean decolonisation, but it can neither explain the nature of indigenous and vernacular Singaporean nationalism, nor the profound displacements taking place below the elite level which made these mass movements possible. Its inadequacy is a direct result of the narrow and partial view of politics to which it is committed by virtue of its language. It is limited to equating the scope of politics with the aggregation of activities and ideas of both the colonial authorities and the Anglophone elites who were directly involved in operating governmental institutions. English-language sources are by definition unable to access the norms, values and idioms inherent in the vernacular.1 Similarly, the historian who is unable to access different languages is placed at a severe disadvantage in accessing this history of a multi-lingual state such as Singapore. Professor Mary Turnbull’s work is illustrative of this deficit. A British civil servant turned academic, Turnbull was unable to speak or read Chinese, Malay or Tamil with any fluency. Her A History of Singapore (later A History of Modern Singapore, 1819–2005) relies entirely on English-language sources. In her bibliography, she lists official records from the UK, USA, India and Singapore, personal papers, nine English-language newspapers, and an extensive list of books and articles. Every single item is in English. 87 88 P.J. Thum Turnbull’s work is by no means the most egregious example of a neglect of non-English sources. Nor does she indulge in the culturalism and soft bigotry of works such as Dennis’ Bloodworth’s The Tiger and the Trojan Horse or John Drysdale’s Singapore: Struggle for Success.2 However, as the progenitor of a modern Singapore-centred historiography, many of the inadequacies of her work were subsequently repeated in later historiography . In addition, the remarkable longevity of her work means that it remains the definitive text for Singapore history, thus continuing to in- fluence new histories which repeat many of her misconceptions. A brief analysis of Turnbull’s work will demonstrate how a reliance on English-language sources paints an incomplete picture of Singapore history. A study that focuses on Chinese perspectives in the post-war period, and in particular the years leading up to independence, is instructive . This period represents the apogee of the Chinese language political influence in Singapore. The great breadth and diversity of Chinese reporting and commentary during this time is fertile ground for the historian seeking to access the Chinese sphere and is thus easiest to illustrate.3 However, with deeper and more careful study, undoubtedly many other examples from across Singapore’s modern history can be illustrated. Using three issues which were very close to Chinese hearts — education , labour rights, and merger with the Federation of Malaya — one is able to discern how an inadequate or partial reporting of facts, a lack of adequate context, and other general cultural barriers prevent the historian from creating a complete view of the situation. Education Policy A sense of frustration among the Chinese-educated was palpable during the post-war period. Turnbull touches on the systemic government discrimination which characterised the Chinese middle school education when she noted that For the traditional Chinese, the most alarming aspect of colonial policy was its threat to Chinese-medium education. The Singapore Chinese were concerned about a new education policy launched in the Federation in 1952, which concentrated on English and Malay schooling. They feared that the authorities were also bent on burying Chinese education in Singapore: in devoting the greater part of finances to the English-language medium schools, it appeared that the colonial government was content to see Chinese education atrophy and die.4 The Limitations of Monolingual History 89 Turnbull describes the poor state of Chinese school facilities, the low pay of most teachers, and the struggles of the schools to make ends meet.5 However, Turnbull blames the schools themselves for much of this situation. Turnbull states that “Chinese schools showed no desire to integrate with any unified system and continued to be run by independent management committees.”6 She further elaborated this reluctance by noting how the Chinese schools rejected a deal offered by the colonial...