No patriotic response from S’pore about Yasukuni visit?

ST has not had any dumb forum letters for some time. So this blog has been dormant.

Fortunately TODAY still has... okay, this is not "dumb" as in stupid... just not very discerning. It is trying to draw a comparison which is not exactly unreasonable, but is based simply on vaguely similar characteristics. If anything, this letter teaches us we need to be more discerning. Unfortunately, we don't think. Not even to write to the papers.

From :CORNELIUS KHOO HONG SIN

Today Forum Page

APRIL 24, 2014

The recent outcry by the Defence Ministry and, to some extent, the local population about the naming of the Indonesian warship after the marines who bombed MacDonald House during Konfrantasi was justifiable.

I wonder why there is no patriotic response, though, about Japanese officials visiting the Yasukuni shrine for Japan’s war dead. Most of the protests come from China and South Korea, through various channels. (“More Japanese MPs head to Yasukuni, marring Obama’s visit”; April 23)

I would think that three years of brutal occupation by an invader in our history would elicit some form of protest, official or otherwise, whenever an official visit to Yasukuni is made.

From a comment on the letter on the website.

I know who the two indonesian soldiers are, and their actions are documented, and their acts are specific, and their victims are Singaporeans.
Do you know, if we are to protest the Yasakuni Shrine Visits, who EXACTLY are the Class-A War Criminals buried ("enshrined"?) at Yasakuni? 
What EXACTLY did they do to Singapore and Singaporeans (Pre-independent Singapore)? Who or what are we protesting?
Do you even KNOW who or what are "Class-A war criminals"? I believe there are 14 there. Do you know if 1 or more of those 14 were actually carrying out atrocities in SG during WWII?
Or is this just a brainless, mindless, unthinking copying of China? You know, the unthinking following of perceived authority that many war criminals use as the excuse for their war crimes - "I was just following orders"?

So what are Class-A War Criminals? They must be the worst of the worst, the most horrendously brutal atrocities were probably committed by them!

Actually no. This is the definition:

The US-led tribunals had three classes of war criminals.  Class A was reserved for those who committed a "crime against peace," by participating in "a joint conspiracy to start and wage war." Under international law, it's a crime to initiate an unprovoked war.  Tens of millions died in Japan's wars to expand the empire from 1937 to 1945.  Class B war criminals were those actually carried out specific atrocities, while Class C was for those accused of "the planning, ordering, authorization, or failure to prevent such transgressions at higher levels in the command structure." In other words, those with command responsibility.

The problem (if there is one) isn't the 14 Class-A war criminals. Those are the ones who started an unprovoked war (and that is certainly bad), and certainly they should be held accountable for it, but they did not commit any atrocities (Class-B), nor did they have command responsibility over those who did (Class-C).

It is actually the other 1000 or so war criminals enshrined there that is the problem:

"about 5,700 Japanese were charged in Classes B and C before the international war crimes tribunal in Tokyo. Almost 1,000 were executed. Others were tried and executed by the Communist Chinese and by the Soviet Union.  It's these men whose presence at Yasukuni offends Japan's neighbors, including 14 Class A criminals."

So, say of the 1000 or so war criminals buried or enshrined (I'm not too sure which is correct) at Yasukuni, there is a good probability that there were at least one or two (or more) that committed atrocities in SG, right? That is, war criminals whose crimes were committed in SG against Singaporeans (pre-independent Singaporeans) are likely to be there. 

So?

Everyone who's dead has to be buried somewhere. Usman and Harun are buried in a HEROES cemetary in Jakarta (or the surrounds). 

We objected to the naming of a WARSHIP after these two as further HONOUR to them.  Other than being buried (and enshrined) in Yasukuni in accordance to their religion, how else are the Japanese War Criminals being honoured?

Nothing else. So some politicians visit the shrine. Why should that matter to outsiders?

To Cornelius Khoo and those who ask about the lack of a patriotic response, let me just say, "Patriotism is the last refuge of scoundrels.".

A German's lifelong love affair with S'pore

Oct 03, 2013

Among the birthday wishes Mr Lee Kuan Yew received for his 90th birthday was this letter from accountant Stefanie Tuczek, 51, of Germany. This is an edited excerpt.




[This is not an ST Forum Page letter, but it is a letter. So I put it here.]

DEAR Mr Lee,

I am from Munich, Germany. My first time in Singapore was in 1978 when our family was on our way to Australia. (My father was a physicist and he was about to spend a working semester there.) I had my 16th birthday in Singapore and I instantly fell in love with your island. Although we travelled around the world and we visited many places such as Hong Kong, Sydney, Hawaii and Tahiti, Singapore always remained my favourite.

In retrospect, I think Singapore Airlines was partly responsible for that: I still remember when my father told us that he booked our flights with some "obscure" airline because they were the cheapest. Nobody knew SIA at that time, at least not in Europe.

From the moment we boarded the plane in Frankfurt, we were thrilled. It took me two more weeks and two more SIA flights before I actually came to Singapore, but I knew right from the beginning that a country with such an exceptional airline must be something special.

[Bravo SIA! But some travellers have felt that SIA standards have fallen. Or rather, not kept up with other airlines. Can't rest on 35-year-old laurels.]

In 1991, I had a brief stopover in Singapore and saw that the Singapore River was cleaned up and not that filthy water I used to know. What an achievement. I could hardly believe my eyes!

In 1998, my mother and I planned to spend a vacation in Batam. We thought it would be nice to combine an Indonesian island close to Singapore which would give us two weeks at a beach and one week in Singapore.

Being back in Singapore was awesome: the clean river and all the new or restored buildings, the MRT, Changi Airport.

Soon we took the ferry for a day trip to Batam to look for a hotel for the beach vacation. But after my mother's passport was stolen, we spent the rest of the day oscillating between the local police station and the immigration at the harbour. It was really hard work to get back to the ferry to Singapore without a passport and without bribing anybody. But when we finally made it, we really appreciated the Singaporean immigration office: nice people, no chaos, no bribes, rules and regulations which were followed strictly! I loved this place even more.

The next day, my mother got a new passport from the German embassy. But we had made up our minds not to leave. Singapore was a safe haven in the middle of strange worlds.

[And that is our selling point. For the less adventurous, for those who want safety and comfort when they travel, Singapore is it.]

And we had a great time. We even went to the beach in Sentosa. In 1978, we just had a cable car ride and we couldn't find proper places to swim.

Since 2000, we have always combined our vacations in Vietnam, Shanghai or Malaysia with Singapore. But the time we spent in Singapore became longer and longer. Now, it is only Singapore. Once or twice a year, we come back for a few weeks. There is always something new.

I tried to learn more about this stunning development. Your memoir, From Third World To First, is definitely one of my favourite books.

Most of my German friends cannot understand why I always go to Singapore. In their opinion it is a police state with corporal punishment and absurd laws, such as no chewing gum and no littering. I gave up arguing with them. Over here it seems quite often that the authorities believe that people will behave without the threat of corporal punishment, which of course doesn't work.

And they make fun of Singaporean campaigns to educate the people. But I never understood what is bad about that. I still remember the signs back in 1978 in public buses - "Courtesy is our way of life." I liked that, it gives you a good feeling.

Or the reminder "Use it, don't lose it" for the Chinese not to forget their native language. Sometimes I ask my Singaporean friends to write some sentences in Chinese characters on my postcards. At first I was surprised how many couldn't do this properly.

They were surprised that I wanted these sentences to impress my friends back home. They couldn't imagine that angmohs are fascinated with the Chinese language. It's so easy to learn it as a child but it's just as easy to forget it as a grown-up. So sad.

Singaporeans are also astonished that I spend so much time in their country. Many think that everything in Germany must be a lot better. I once praised the toilets in MRT stations. The reply was: "OK-lah. But I suppose they are much better in Germany!" Unfortunately I had to answer that if there is a subway toilet, it is either filthy or closed because of vandalism.

I think in both countries many younger people take the status quo for granted and don't consider the hard work done to achieve this level.

Anyway, this is just a story of somebody from Europe who loves your country a lot, and who is well aware that all these great developments happened thanks to you. I wish we had wise politicians like you in Europe, but I know that this will never happen.

I look forward to November when I will have the great pleasure again to spend four divine weeks in Singapore. I wish you a very happy birthday and I hope that you will be Singapore's mastermind for many more years!

Alles Gute fur Sie und Ihre Familie (All the best for you and your family).

http://www.singapolitics.sg/views/germans-lifelong-love-affair-spore

Hard to forget - Japanese Occupation 1942

31 Mar 2012

'My grandfather was in the middle of dinner with his family when he was taken away. My grandmother never spoke again.'

COLONIAL HISTORY

Jul 26, 2010

Apathy? Far from it
I WAS impressed by Europe correspondent Jonathan Eyal's insightful comments ('History as it should be taught'; July 17) on the crossroads of teaching history in British schools, only to be disconcerted by his assertions about 'citizens of the old colonies'.

After suggesting the pitfalls of choosing between neglecting and engaging with the history of the British Empire, Mr Eyal concludes that the only 'consolation' is that formerly colonised citizens 'no longer care, one way or another'. He presents this ignorance as a post-colonial triumph. But why should apathy be considered a 'consolation', and for whom?

To say that the seduction of 'globalisation and economic growth' leads directly to such historical indifference is reductive.

Instead of being 'content to retain their Victoria streets', as Mr Eyal suggests, the Mumbai authorities bowed to pressure from Hindu right-wingers to rename Victoria Terminus in 1996. Replacing colonial names with names of local origin has continued since independence from British rule, pursued with growing enthusiasm in countries such as Myanmar.

Even if Mr Eyal was referring primarily to Singapore, with its seemingly superficial attachment to all names colonial, the reality is far more complex.

Rather than offer superficial, symbolic associations, the book, Singapore Through 19th Century Photographs, by Mr Jason Toh actively engages with colonial architecture and city planning.
Last year, a National Museum of Singapore exhibition featured public lectures, which interpreted the physical environment of colonial Singapore, while a tour of the landscape of 19th century Singapore through visual records was sold out.

Apart from such academic efforts, colonial history resounds in current affairs. The fact that the British administered Pedra Branca for 100 years heavily influenced the International Court of Justice case between Singapore and Malaysia in 2008.

More recently, it was revealed that the KTM railway land, originally thought to be Malaysian property, had in fact been leased from the British Straits Settlements from 1918. Such imperial developments reverberate strongly today.

Still, Mr Eyal surprisingly concludes that 'coming to terms' with the largest empire in history is, just 13 years after the return of Hong Kong, 'now a problem for the British alone'. I am one of these 'citizens of the old colonies' who Mr Eyal claims no longer cares how the history of the empire is approached. As a Singaporean undergraduate studying history in Britain, I could not disagree more.

Ashish Ravinran

[This letter doesn't really belong here because it is rather well-written and the author does have a point - that apathy should not be a consolation prize. But then again, I don't believe Eyal was presenting this as a "consolation prize". Rather, he was making a comment, perhaps cynical, that how the British represents themselves to their populace is not going to be very controversial as opposed to say the Japanese rewriting their history text to gloss over the events of World War II.

So Eyal is not wrong to say that citizens of old colonies (or ex-colonies) would not care one way or another how the British engage (or don't engage) their citizens. A a Singaporean undergrad studying history in Britain, the writer disagrees. Of course he would. He's a history student. Specialising in British History. But I think we can safely assume that he is the exception that proves the rule.

As for the cases of imperial rule reverberating to contemporary issues, they make an interesting footnote but are irrelevant to the issue which is how Britain will engage their citizens on their history. It is not about whether there are influences for the ex-colonies, but rather how to teach British history to the British. And on that most citizens of ex-colonies would not care how it is done. So Eyal is right, and the writer is confused about the point Eyal is making.]

Singapore remained a functioning port: After fall of Temasek in 14th century

Dec 6, 2008

IN HIS letter on Monday, 'Sleepy fishing village? Singapore a sizeable port of regional significance in 14th century', Mr Gilles Massot, replying to Mr Tan Yip Meng ('Back to the future, a sleepy fishing village', Nov 25), invoked my name and expertise. Mr Massot referred to a short paper I prepared for the colloquium The Makers And Keepers Of Singapore History at the Asia Research Institute on Nov 10. As the letter to the Forum touches on the history of pre-Raffles Singapore and is of considerable interest to the public, I would like to clarify my position on a few points.

The first concerns Stamford Raffles. Mr Massot accuses Raffles of spreading lies. While I fully concur that there are a number of problematic and historically challenging aspects relating to the Van Braam treaty of 1784, its impact on the Johor-Riau-Lingga Empire, and implicitly the legal status of Singapore island, I veer to the side of caution and surmise that Raffles simply did not know any better. For sure, he was insanely hostile to the Dutch cause, but he was also completely ignorant of Singapura's fate and history between the late 15th and early 18th century.

This leads us to the issue of Singapura's protracted decline. Mr Massot is absolutely correct to highlight that there are non-English language sources of European provenance worth consulting. These lend support to the view that Singapura had a sizeable and functioning port well beyond the 'fall' of Temasek. Over the past decade, I have published a series of papers to advance precisely this point. The public should know that the Florentine merchant-traveller Giovanni da Empoli wrote his last will and testament while anchored in the 'port of Singapura'. That was in the year 1517. Several officers' logs of the early Dutch voyages to the East Indies mention the Singapore Strait, and describe in considerable detail their passage through the narrow channel that separates present-day Sentosa and HarbourFront. Vice-Admiral Pietersz van Enkhuysen mentions in his log the 'town' of Singapore in an entry dating from 1603. The most comprehensive and detailed testimony, however, derives from the Spanish-language materials of Jacques de Coutre. In several memorials addressed to the King of Spain, de Coutre recommends the construction of one fortification each on Singapore and Sentosa, and a third on what appears to be the north shore of Pulau Tekong Besar. De Coutre also makes reference to the town he calls Shabandaria, because this was the site of the shabandar or harbour master. This can be additionally corroborated on the basis of Portuguese cartography dating from the early 17th century. De Coutre's ship anchored in the port of Singapura in 1594 and he also told the King of Spain it was 'one of the best that serves all of the Indies'. All this hardly squares with the image of a sleepy seafront kampung.

There are, of course, other sources as well, but it must be immediately added that European authors are not always clear what they are talking about. About a decade ago, I consulted some letters by Francis Xavier, the famed 16th-century Jesuit and missionary. He makes references to Singapura as well, but the Jesuit refers to the narrow strait between present-day HarbourFront and Sentosa, and not the town. Now, as was evidently the case with Xavier's vessel, ships often had to anchor off the waters near Fort Siloso or in the Old Harbour of Singapore (which was located to the south of Beach Road, now under reclaimed land) to await the change of the tides and winds. Surviving reports and testimonies tell us this waiting could take days, even a week or more. There are reports mentioning scores of vessels anchored off present-day Fort Siloso waiting to pass through the Old Strait. When the wind and tide was finally favourable, ships had to pass through the strait, whether it was broad daylight or the wee hours of the morning. That is why ships often relied on local pilots to guide them though dangerous waters that were littered with submerged rocks and reefs.

Singapore's local population, we are told by many Dutch and Portuguese sources dating from the 16th and 17th centuries, and notably also by de Coutre, lived in and around the Old Strait, as well as in the town located at the mouth of the Singapore River. Few sources from this period describe the local population as 'pirates' - that label appears to date from a later period in the 18th and early 19th century. Now the local population were nothing short of clever business people, acting as pilots to guide ships though the Old Strait, or as flying vendors who pulled up in their boats alongside the passing ships to sell fresh fruit, fish, live chickens and fresh water. Some of the local residents, we are told, spoke Portuguese fluently, and after the dawn of the 17th century, also Dutch. In other words, in the 16th and early 17th century, Singapore was a pretty happening place.

Dr John Miksic, whose name Mr Massot also invokes, has published extensively on his archaeological findings in Singapore. I refer to his excellent publications and add only this observation from my own research in archives in Portugal and the Netherlands: Something seems to have happened around Singapore in the first decade of the 17th century. Dr Miksic - perhaps relying on the testimony of the 18th-century Dutch cleric Francois Valentyn - claims the Portuguese had 'destroyed' or burnt down Singapura sometime around the first decade of the 17th century. Indeed, there were Portuguese attacks on settlements up the Johor River, such as in 1587 when Paulo Lima de Pereira sacked Johor Lama, and again in 1604 or early 1605 when the Portuguese attacked the rebuilt city and other towns further upstream. Valentyn mentions a Portuguese attack in 1608. Singapura may have been burnt down by another party at another date, namely by the Acehnese in 1613, in the course of their second attack on the royal residence of Batu Sawar in 1615, or even as late as 1617 to 1618 when the Acehnese attacked positions in Pahang, Bintan and Lingga.

The Spanish armada arriving from Manila anchored off Singapore in late 1615 and early 1616, raising alarm among the Johor nobles and particularly the sultan who pressed the proverbial 'panic button' with the Dutch by requesting their prompt military assistance. An attack on Singapura made sense in any case, because we know from the log of Admiral Cornelis Matelieff de Jonge (1605 to 1608) that Singapura was the residence of the shahbandar, and this shahbandar also commanded over a sizeable 'fleet' of the Johor sultan. All this evidence hardly reflects the image of a sleepy seafront kampung.

My own extensive research on the Singapore and Malacca straits has revealed that references to the town of Singapura or the Shahbandaria diminish after about 1620. This could be linked to the periodic Acehnese attacks (Johor was at peace with Portugal at the time) and the sultan who fled to Bintan, Lingga and finally died on one of the Tambelan Islands in the early 1620s.

What is clear from all of the above is that Singapura was not in a forgotten backwater or a sleepy seafront kampung. It would be simply self-deluding to repeat the error and false conclusions of Raffles and assume that the sleepy kampung of Singapura had always been that way, at least since the fall of Temasek in the 15th century.

In conclusion, I fully concur with Mr Massot that pre-Raffles Singapore history has been quantitatively and qualitatively enriched over the past 20 years, notably also as a result of the archaeological excavations of Dr Miksic in the 1980s. The research findings from archaeological diggings and archival research are all out there, published, in the libraries, sometimes on the Internet, and in any case freely accessible to the public. But the debate over the value, meaning and significance of these published findings for the modern Singapore citizen continues.

This contribution is submitted as a private individual.

Peter Borschberg

[Then once in a while, someone intelligent, or who knows what he's talking about writes in and enlighten us all. Nice.]