picture in my mind

I want to post the entry I contributed at my politics of heritage module forum. Cause I feel for it. So here.

It is difficult to address the issue of legitimacy, because essentially, we have to define what is right and what is wrong. And obviously, not everyone can agree on that. For instance, is the creation of the Israeli State justified? Sure, prehistory confirms that it is so. But at the expense of another country? At the expense of other peoples' homes? If we were to take the Israeli state concept and apply it elsewhere, then wouldn't the Native Americans say, have the right to rule USA, because America is technically theirs?

Singapore is of course, the exact opposite of Israel (despite Lee Kuan Yew's awe of the latter). We are not built on a long ancient history. The majority of Singaporeans are not natives. We came from elsewhere and we have settled here and called this place home. Imagine if the Orang Laut, an imaginary Singaporean version of Israelis on their return to motherland, claimed rule over Singapore - would we concede? I doubt so. So whose is Singapore? Does Singapore belong to the people who helped develop it or does it belong to the people who first originated from this land? Or maybe the most essential question is: Does conquering a piece of land immediately imply ownership? I can't even begin to assert my own opinion on this because I am completely torn about it. The Orang Laut would say, "You stole Singapore from us!" And we'd say, "You weren't here to defend it! And we made Singapore what it is today!" It just seems like an impossible situation!

After discussion in class, I went home to ask my mum, feeling quite bothered, "Singapore is originally a Malay country, right?" My mother replied with a vehement, "Yes!" And I told her, "Well, despite the way you always seem to put it, I don't think it's common knowledge at all!" Quite frankly, I feel very appalled, at the disparity of opinions within my household and within class. No one seemed very ready to say that the Orang Laut were essentially Malays, more than anything else, despite the obvious fact that the term "Orang Laut" itself is of the Malay language. The issue seems somewhat scary, and one has to tiptoe around it. It is starting to appear to me, that the term Orang Laut has been conveniently used to displace the roots of the Malays. Oh sure, quite a number of them were from Malaysia, technically not Singapore itself, and some from Indonesia, but surely, surely, there are indigenous Malays amongst them. But I think if you were to ask a Malay if he was a Native, he'd be confused and say no. I'm not sure what to make of it - state success in rewriting Singapore history perhaps, or are Malays really not natives of Singapore at all?

Of course it would be disadvantageous for Singapore to refer to the distant past with regards to our nationality. We'd be going back to talk of Majapahit eras and their ruling of the entire archipelago, and Malay folk tales of Hang Tuah, Hang Jebat and other Malay warriors. Doing so would backfire on Singapore's racial harmony concept; Malays would perhaps realise that they had more reason to live in Singapore; they'd demand more, perhaps; more rights, more power. Prehistory would favour the Malays. But certainly, starting the 1800s, all the races would be on better footing; we'd all be on par. So that's where our nation-state takes the start of Singapore history.

Kohl and Fawcett brings up the dilemma that "minority groups, particularly indigenous peoples, face when they assert their claims over the remains of a past used by the majority population to create an image of the nation's bi-cultural or multi-cultural identity". I can understand that. Because while Malays would claim that Singapore's distant past belongs to them, Singapore today however, isn't entirely theirs. It's a difficult situation and I think will remain so.