17 Aug 1996 Mr Koo Tsai Kees letter demonstrates the selective nature of historical accounts (ST, Aug 17). He cited two examples of historical falsification to support his prescription that wrong interpretations of history should be rejected: the denial of the Holocaust and Japans aggression during the Second World War. However, historical falsification is entirely different from alternative interpretations of facts. And how can a person reject something unless she is fully informed of what it is she is rejecting? His examples also show the danger of manipulation if only one version of history is available. Neo-Nazis or Japanese right-wingers argue as fervently as Mr Koo that all versions of history contrary to theirs are wrong and should be rejected to prevent young Germans or Japanese from being misled. This shows that we should never allow others to suppress alternative historical interpretations for our own good. Mr Koo then ran afoul of the twin problems of fact-selection and interpretation in presenting his version of our history. Firstly, Mr Koos factually correct account of the Separation of Singapore from Malaysia is incomplete. He seemed unaware of the fierce resentment aroused by the oppositional politics of the PAP in the Federal Parliament. As Tunku Abdul Rahman saw it, merger failed because the PAP Government was a 'State Government that has ceased to give even a measure of loyalty to the Central Government' (Separation Announcement, 9 August 1965). The Tunkus perception of the PAPs responsibility for the Separation is unflattering, but many Malaysians share his sentiments nonetheless. This is not the place to debate whether the Tunku or Mr Koo is more right. The example simply highlights the folly of complacency in the face of incomplete knowledge. Unless we are sensitive to alternative interpretations of the Separation, we may inadvertently damage relations with our neighbour by our depiction of the events of that period. Secondly, Mr Koos interpretation of the PAP Governments policies as necessary begs the questions: which policies; and what degree of necessity? Reasonable persons may assess complex issues differently. Mr Koo claimed that a single history based on historical facts is the very basis for national solidarity. He erred in ignoring the crucial questions: what set of facts; and whose interpretation? It is instructive that South Africa has courageously chosen to teach its children how to think historically by presenting different historical accounts rather than indoctrinating them in an official black history (ST, Aug 14). Mr Koo rightly said that a society with no sense of history will not endure. But a society unable to think historically can have no sense of history. Lacking Mr Koos confidence in the sufficiency of one single history, I contend that the development of historical thinking requires us to confront different historical interpretations and learn to sieve important facts from trivia and fiction. The propagation of only one historical account dulls the intellect and increases our susceptibility to political manipulation. It is not in our national interest.
[Ed: Mr Koo's letter is included here for reference.] AUG 17 1996 Let's teach our shared history based on facts I AGREE with Francis Chong Fu Shin (ST, Aug 10) that history is not just about the past, but more important, about the interpretation of the past. But that does not make all versions of the past equally valid. Some revisionist historians have claimed that the Holocaust, in which millions of Jews were killed, never took place. Others say Japanese aggression in Asia during the Pacific War was a legitimate attempt to liberate East Asia from the clutches of European colonialism. Surely these "interpretations" of history should be rejected not just now -- but for all time. Modern Singapore's history is short. The Japanese occupied Singapore for 3-1/2 years during World War II. Many civilians were massacred and many more perished. After the war, communist agitation and strikes wracked Singapore. After Singapore gained internal self-rule under a PAP government in 1959, the communists broke with the PAP, leaving the non-communists in the PAP government to fight a life-and-death struggle against them for the hearts and minds of the people. In September 1963, Singapore gained independence as a state in Malaysia. But there was basic disagreement with the central government in Kuala Lumpur over the fundamental issue of equal citizenship rights for all races in Malaysia, including Singapore. This led to conflicts. Externally-instigated race riots broke out twice in Singapore in 1964. Many Chinese and Malays were killed. Race relations in Malaysia became polarised between Malays and non-Malays. Finally, on Aug 9, 1965, Singapore was ejected from the Federation. After separation from Malaysia, the leaders and people of Singapore had to fight many dire threats to the island's security, economy and social cohesion. The people rallied behind the Government in implementing necessary but tough policies. Eventually, these policies made Singapore the most competitive economy in the world and one of the fastest growing. In one generation, Singaporeans have transformed our country into a safe, orderly and prosperous country -- one in which every citizen has a stake and which every citizen is proud to defend. These are documented historical facts. What "alternative historical account" of these facts does Mr Chong propose? Why should we be unable to teach this history to Singaporeans? Mr Chong criticises "the reduction of history into an instrument to build solidarity". A shared history based on historical facts is the very basis for national solidarity in every nation. A society with no sense of history will not endure. KOO TSAI KEE (The writer is an MP for Tanjong Pagar GRC)