Scan barcode
slightlyliterary's review
challenging
informative
reflective
slow-paced
4.0
Raffles Renounced is a collection of essays centred around our colonial history and Singapore's contradicting singular story. These essays—written by literary scholars, historians and artists—invite us to analyse the inconsistencies within our Singaporean narrative and see how these inconsistencies continue to affect us as a nation today; they are a call for a more enriching and robust Singaporean history that faces its past head-on, untangling us from colonial narratives and providing possibilities for more nuanced understanding, and in turn, a better future.
Giving space for Malay voices to contribute to our historical discourse, it allows us as readers to understand more intricately the ties between pre-colonial Singapore and the surrounding Malay world at the time. It also examines our recent Bicentennial and revisionist history, delving deep into how the framing of history and denial of our trauma has led to our current state: the branding of Raffles, the myth of the lazy native, the distortion of previous opposition leaders and more. Also brought up is the debate of whether colonialism was good or bad, challenging the national stance of colonialism being seen in a rather positive light for turning Singapore from a fishing village to a busy trading hub (and this claim is also contested in the book!).
As a whole, reading this book has been such an enriching experience for me—not just because I'm learning more about the different voices throughout history and how Singapore's colonialisation period is so deeply rooted within us (in ways I never noticed/expected), but also because I've come to understand and appreciate the complexity of history as a subject. Back in Secondary school, history felt more like memory work and a regurgitation of 'facts'. But with these essays, it was fascinating to see how the authors sifted through many sources and engaged in a critical, empathetic way of thinking: whose stories am I missing out on when I take this stance? What voices have been lost in the process of history? Chapter 9 in particular, titled Historical Plurality in Sean Cham's Art , is an exploratory essay on his art exhibitions which plug the 'gaps' in our dominant historical narrative, but also acknowledge the fallibility of not just Cham's art, but of any historical narrative.
One thing to note if you plan on reading this, however, is that the prose can be quite dense and difficult to absorb at times, since it does draw from many historical texts. The discussions as well can sometimes get a little confusing (at least for me). But don't let that deter you; this is a book well-worth your time. Go at your own pace, and if you can, read it in a group so that ya'll can take the time to discuss each chapter and pick up what you might've missed :-)
Some quotes below that I really liked:
And the act of forgetting is an add-on to the trauma and an act of trauma itself. Whereas in other countries when they talk about it, they always recognise and deal with and look at the trauma directly. And in doing so they are able to move forward. If we don't look at it, there is the danger that we will inflict it on others.
Only politicians would consider history as having the two opposite sides of good/beauty and bad/dark. History to me is a series of complex events crisscrossing and moving along. It is only by capturing the holistic view and its cause-and-consequence that one can comprehensively understand its complex nature.
Discourse uncritical of its past would not be able to develop a critical consciousness for its present and future.
Giving space for Malay voices to contribute to our historical discourse, it allows us as readers to understand more intricately the ties between pre-colonial Singapore and the surrounding Malay world at the time. It also examines our recent Bicentennial and revisionist history, delving deep into how the framing of history and denial of our trauma has led to our current state: the branding of Raffles, the myth of the lazy native, the distortion of previous opposition leaders and more. Also brought up is the debate of whether colonialism was good or bad, challenging the national stance of colonialism being seen in a rather positive light for turning Singapore from a fishing village to a busy trading hub (and this claim is also contested in the book!).
As a whole, reading this book has been such an enriching experience for me—not just because I'm learning more about the different voices throughout history and how Singapore's colonialisation period is so deeply rooted within us (in ways I never noticed/expected), but also because I've come to understand and appreciate the complexity of history as a subject. Back in Secondary school, history felt more like memory work and a regurgitation of 'facts'. But with these essays, it was fascinating to see how the authors sifted through many sources and engaged in a critical, empathetic way of thinking: whose stories am I missing out on when I take this stance? What voices have been lost in the process of history? Chapter 9 in particular, titled Historical Plurality in Sean Cham's Art , is an exploratory essay on his art exhibitions which plug the 'gaps' in our dominant historical narrative, but also acknowledge the fallibility of not just Cham's art, but of any historical narrative.
One thing to note if you plan on reading this, however, is that the prose can be quite dense and difficult to absorb at times, since it does draw from many historical texts. The discussions as well can sometimes get a little confusing (at least for me). But don't let that deter you; this is a book well-worth your time. Go at your own pace, and if you can, read it in a group so that ya'll can take the time to discuss each chapter and pick up what you might've missed :-)
Some quotes below that I really liked:
And the act of forgetting is an add-on to the trauma and an act of trauma itself. Whereas in other countries when they talk about it, they always recognise and deal with and look at the trauma directly. And in doing so they are able to move forward. If we don't look at it, there is the danger that we will inflict it on others.
Only politicians would consider history as having the two opposite sides of good/beauty and bad/dark. History to me is a series of complex events crisscrossing and moving along. It is only by capturing the holistic view and its cause-and-consequence that one can comprehensively understand its complex nature.
Discourse uncritical of its past would not be able to develop a critical consciousness for its present and future.
More...