Getting textbooks to accurately depict how Singapore gained independence

This year as Singapore commemorates its bicentennial, it will be relevant to examine how our students have been taught our history, in particular our independence.

Our students formally learn about the separation of Singapore from Malaysia through their Primary 4 social studies' lessons and textbook.

It will be meaningful to examine the facts that have been taught to them and updated facts that will be presented in the next few years.

The Pri 4 social studies textbook was first published in 2013 by Marshall Cavendish.  

The 2019 edition says this of Singapore’s separation from Malaysia: “It was difficult to continue (with the merger). Hence, a decision was made”.

These two statements were juxtaposed with an excerpt from an article in The Straits Times with a photo of then Malaysian Prime Minister Tunku Abdul Rahman and the subheader “Tengku: It was my idea…”

In an interview published in 1996, Singapore's first Finance Minister, Dr Goh Keng Swee, revealed that he had proposed the separation to Malaysian leaders such as Deputy Prime Minister Tun Abdul Razak and Home Affairs Minister Dr Ismail Abdul Rahman, during their meeting in July 1965.

In addition, Law Minister Edmund Barker’s oral history records and founding Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew’s memoirs noted that Mr Lee had asked Mr Barker to draft the separation documents and the proclamation of independence in July.

Tunku Abdul Rahman thought that he was the one who made the decision to separate and said so. In reality, Dr Goh suggested and secured the separation, with the support of leaders from Malaysia and Singapore.

The current social studies textbook noted: “To prevent race riots from occurring again, the Singapore leaders agreed with the decision for Singapore to leave Malaysia.” This statement gave the impression that the Singapore leaders complied with Tunku’s decision.

It is true that Singapore leaders agreed with the decision.

At the same time, specific leaders of Singapore played prominent roles in proposing and facilitating the separation, with support from Malaysian leaders.

After Dr Goh proposed the separation in Kuala Lumpur, Tun Razak wrote a letter to Tunku informing him of the proposal. After getting the separation agreement with the signatures of the Malaysian leaders, Mr Lee said to Mr Barker: “Thanks, Eddie, we’ve pulled off a bloodless coup.”

The subsequent paragraph of the social studies textbook stated in an apparently factual manner: “Separation was a sad moment in Singapore”.

The reality was more nuanced.

Mr Lee recalled in his memoirs: “But while I felt crushed and distraught, there was rejoicing in Chinatown. The merchants let off a barrage of Chinese firecrackers to celebrate their freedom from communal oppression”.

There were relief and celebrations in parts of Singapore when the people learnt about the separation. The stock market also responded favourably and the index rose to a new high. Is it then factually accurate to generalise that the separation was a sad moment for our leaders and people?

The Secondary 2 history textbook published by Star Publishing in 2015 presents a range of perspectives on the separation.

It features Mr Barker’s views: “We were determined to get out. I think they were just as determined that we should go. It was not a question of them kicking us out. It was an agreement to separate. But there was no going back. It was just: ‘Alright, we agree to separate and that was the best we could have done then'."

This history textbook also featured Social Affairs Minister Othman Wok’s comments: “We were all very surprised. But in my heart I said: ‘That’s the best news I have heard so far, because in the two years since Singapore joined Malaysia, I could see the difficulties dealing with those people in Kuala Lumpur’.”

On the other hand, Ministers S. Rajaratnam, Toh Chin Chye and Ong Pang Boon were saddened by the separation.

Compared to the social studies textbook which simply stated that it was a sad moment for the leaders and people of Singapore, the history textbook stated correctly that the political leaders in Singapore had mixed reactions to the separation.

Since 2016, I have informed the Ministry of Education of these variations and discrepancies.

I understand that from next year, a new Pri 4 social studies textbook will be introduced.

This year, selected schools have been involved in a pilot programme using this updated edition of the social studies textbook.

Contrary to the generalisation in the current edition, this pilot version stated that there were “mixed reactions” when the separation was announced. This is more reflective of the actual situation in August 1965.  

This new edition also summarised the separation process more accurately: “To prevent racial riots from occurring again, the leaders of Singapore and Malaysia met for discussions. They eventually decided that the two countries had to be separated.”

This is reflective of the true nature of the negotiations leading to Singapore’s independence.

As Malaysian Minister Dr Ismail recalled: “In spite of what was believed, the separation of Singapore from Malaysia was by mutual agreement.”

Contrary to past perceptions, Singapore was not booted or kicked out of Malaysia.

It is time our students deepen their understanding of the significance of Singapore's historical facts as well as the active roles the pioneer leaders played in helping Singapore gain independence.  

This will help our future generations better appreciate the nation's past, the contributions of its pioneers as well as Singapore's relationship with Malaysia.   

Advancing knowledge involves inquiring and examining established facts, which can subsequently be reviewed as a result of research involving new or additional data and analysis.

Likewise, lifelong learning involves the advancement of knowledge and research, as well as the reappraisal of facts and history, so as to have accurate, updated and relevant historical accounts.

In this way, our people and nation can continue to learn and progress. This process also reveals the need to be receptive to research and various valid perspectives.

The old narrative of Singapore being kicked out should indeed be refreshed with more accurate and nuanced narratives that involve our leaders who actively worked towards an independent, prosperous and flourishing Singapore.

ABOUT THE AUTHOR:

Edmund Lim is a director of research and innovation in the education sector. He previously taught social studies at the National Institute of Education, Nanyang Technological University (NTU). His PhD research topic at NTU is on the independence of Singapore.