用自己的眼睛看我国历史

For Singaporeans who are used to viewing things here and even overseas from a Singaporean perspective, it is strange that when it comes to our own history, they will see it through Western （mainly British） eyes.

　　How long is our history？ The “standard answer” is more than 100 years. And the “standard answer” to when our history begins is： From the day Sir Stamford Raffles set foot on the island in 1819. Does it mean then that the island has no history prior to the arrival of Stamford Raffles？ How ridiculous！

　　Not surprisingly, history textbooks written by the British for us during the colonial times chose an angle to give prominence to their achievements. They also tried to give the impression that Singapore‘s history began only after the arrival of the British and it was the British who give the island its lifeline and subsequent progress and prosperity.

　　The intention here is not to write off the contributions of Stamford Raffles and the British in developing the island, but to make the point that this account of our history is incomplete.

　　How did Stamford Raffles gain control of the island？ This is a critical question in our history that not many have bothered themselves with. For a long time, we had danced to the British tune and sung the praises of the colonial master.

　　Books published by the British all tell of how Stamford Raffles “took Singapore by strategy”, but probe further and we will find that there is another account of what happened. This version has it that Stamford Raffles got himself involved in the palace struggles of the Johore-Rhio Sultanate. He backed Crown Prince Tungku Long as the Sultan and then got him to sign a deal with Britain to cede the island to the British permanently.

　　Tungku Long who later became Sultan Hussein, was still living in Rhio in 1819. It was Stamford Raffles who brought him to Singapore to be installed as the Sultan and the British even built a palace for him in Kampong Glam. Singaporeans who are ignorant of this part of our history will no doubt wonder why there was previously a palace in Kampong Glam.

　　The documentation of history in feudal China adhered closely to a stubborn tradition of not telling the truth about people in authority, especially the emperor and high-ranking officials, for fear of incurring their wrath. As a result, only their merits were recorded but not their faults and the truth became hard to establish.

　　This poses a major problem now for the study of the history of ancient China for historians. We are no longer living in a feudal society； do we need to cling on to this tradition？

　　We should not deny Stamford Raffles the credit of having the foresight to recognise Singapore‘s advantageous geographical location and playing a role in the growth of the island. But there was no question that he did everything in the interests of the British empire. Had there been any conflict of interests between Singapore and Britain, he would never have done anything at the expense of the latter.

　　Records of Britain‘s days as a colonial master penned by the British often make no mention either of the history of blood and tears of Chinese indentured labourers or the sad and miserable life of Indian workers （prisoners in India brought to Singapore by the British to perform hard labour） and their contributions to public works in Singapore.

　　The processing and trading of opium here in the early years and widespread corruption in the 50s were also ugly sides of the society duing the British rule. For younger generations of Singaporeans to have a good grasp of our history and appreciate the progress that we have made over the years, all these should be objectively and accurately captured in our school textbooks.

　　The British who governed Singapore for more than a hundred years must have done quite a few things that they could not be proud of. While they have reasons to avoid mentioning them, we should see them as part of our history.

　　If we give the British rule undue recognition and praises and do not bring its ugly sides to light, young Singaporeans may well wonder： “If the colonial rule was so desirable, why did we fight to put an end to it？”

　　（The writer is an Executive Sub-editor of Lianhe Zaobao. Translated by Yap Gee Poh.）

　　新加坡人看今天的新加坡都习惯用自己的眼睛,看外国也非常习惯用自己的眼睛,但是,碰到自己国家的历史时,却神不知鬼不觉地换了用洋人（主要是英国人）的眼睛。

　　问一问新加坡的历史有多长,“标准答案”是百多年。再问：那是从什么时候算起的？还是“标准答案”：从莱佛士1819年在新加坡登陆那天算起。那么,莱佛士到新加坡之前,新加坡就没有历史吗？太可笑了！

　　殖民地时代英国人写给我们读的历史,采取的是大英帝国的视角,这一点也不奇怪,他们当然要突出英国人的功劳。他们试图给人一种印象：新加坡的历史是从英国人来了之后才开始的,是英国人给了这个小岛生命,带来了进步与繁荣。

　　我们无意抹煞莱佛士与英国人对新加坡的开发所做的贡献,但我们要说,那不是我们历史的全部。

　　莱佛士如何取得新加坡？很少人深究这个新加坡历的重大问题。长期以来,我们都是按照英国人定的调子,歌颂英殖民者的功绩。

　　英国人的书讲的都是莱佛士如何“智取”新加坡,但是,如果深入了解,我们就会发现故事其实有另一个版本。这个版本是说,莱佛士介入柔佛廖内王朝的宫廷纷争,他扶持原来的王储东姑隆上台当苏丹,然后由这位苏丹与英方签约,将新加坡永久割让给英国。

　　这位英国人一手扶上苏丹宝座的东姑隆,即是后来的苏丹胡申。新加坡开埠那年,他还住在廖内,是莱佛士将他迎来新加坡登基为苏丹的,英国人还在甘榜格南为他建了一座王宫。不知道这段历史,人们就无法理解,为什么甘榜格南曾经有一座苏丹王宫。

　　中国历史记载有个顽强的传统：为尊者讳,尤其是本朝的史官写本朝的帝王,都不敢讲真话、记坏事,尽量隐恶扬善,文过饰非。

　　这个传统使后人难以了解真实的历史,对于史学是个极大的伤害。今天,我们已告别封建时代,难道还要死抱为尊者讳的传统不放吗？

　　莱佛士的功绩,我们当然不能抹煞,他的眼光独到,很早就看到了新加坡的优越地理位置,他对于新加坡的开发是有贡献的。然而,他所做的一切,首先是为了大英帝国的利益,这是毫无疑问的。

　　当新加坡人民的利益与英国殖民者的利益有冲突的时候,他绝不会为了新加坡人民而牺牲大英帝国的利益,这也是不言而喻的。

　　英国人写的殖民史,往往不提猪仔（契约劳工）的血泪史,也不讲早年印度劳工（英国人将在印度关的囚犯押来新加坡做苦工）的辛酸史,以及他们对新加坡公共工程的贡献。

　　再有,早期在新加坡的鸦片加工与买卖,50年代的贪污风气等等,都是英国殖民统治时代的阴暗面,都应当公正、客观地写出来,编入我们的历史教科书,让我们的下一代正确认识自己国家的历史,看到今天新加坡的进步。

　　英殖民统治百多年,肯定干了许多不光彩的事,如果英国人有回避那段不光彩历史的必要,那么我们呢？也有这个必要吗？

　　如果对英国的殖民统治给予过多的肯定与赞美,而不指出其阴暗面,那么我们的年轻一代就要问：既然殖民统治那么好,干吗要反对？干吗要求结束殖民统治？