SINGAPORE: Questions about how we remember Singapore’s colonial past arose when National Parks Board (NParks) announced the installation of two statues, of Sir Stamford Raffles and Danish botanist Dr Nathaniel Wallich, at Fort Canning Park.
Some quarters viewed the memorial as a step backwards, as countries worldwide confront the legacies of their colonial leaders. In June 2020, protesters pulled down a statue of Edward Colston in Bristol, England, and dumped it into a harbour. Colston was a 17th-century merchant, philanthropist and slave trader.
On the other hand, some in Singapore feel the statues of Raffles and Wallich are deserved because of their contributions to botany. Both men contributed to research on local flora in the region during the 1800s. They also established the garden in 1822, though it shut down seven years later due to financial difficulties.
Singapore will soon be celebrating 60 years of nation building. There has been a revival of interest in Singapore’s bygone years, and how historical figures should be chronicled for the next generation.
Pioneers who arrived in the 19th century left a deep imprint on the country. Tan Tock Seng and Sophia Blackmore, for instance, contributed to Singapore’s development in various capacities and their stories continue to resonate with many.
The two figures are remembered for their philanthropy in public health and education, respectively. Their place in our collective memory has not been weighed down by colonial baggage, even though Blackmore had her roots in Australia and Tan worked closely with the British crown. Both have risen above politics in our historical narratives.
Notwithstanding their illustrious records, there is now a more nationalistic tone in the conversation on how history should be preserved, guided by contemporary global discourse on decolonisation.
There is a risk of seeing public monuments through a binary, exclusionary lens, where historical figures are either natives or subjugators.
VIEWING THE PAST THROUGH A BINARY PRISMSome have called for a review or disposal of monuments linked to colonialism, slavery, bigotry and other unsavoury misdemeanours. This perspective, though understandable and emotionally appealing, overlooks the complexity of the past and our inherent biases.
In the US, more than 160 monuments of Confederate military generals were stripped from public spaces since the start of Black Lives Matter demonstrations in 2020, for the figures’ associations with racism and slavery.
In Taiwan, the authorities pledged to remove 760 effigies of Chiang Kai-shek for the atrocities committed against political dissidents during his leadership.
Proponents to remove such artefacts argue that they have no place in modern society because of what they represent.
While this motivation rightly underscores our contemporaneous norms for multicultural respect and inclusion, it is worth pointing out that historical figures are not detached from the circumstances of their era.
Related:
Commentary: Why did George Floyd protests gain traction worldwide – including Asia? 
Commentary: Don’t underestimate casual racism at Singapore workplaces PARTIAL AND SELECTIVE MEMORY OF HISTORYImportantly, our memory of history is both partial and selective.
First, the reverence to Raffles was a strategic and deliberate decision to advance Singapore’s interests.
Albert Winsemius, the late Dutch economist, advised founding prime minister Lee Kuan Yew to keep the Raffles monument as a signal to the world that Singapore is open to international trading.
Crucially, the advice is a reflection of Singapore’s lack of natural resources and the imperative to be an interlocutor between major global economies. The Raffles monuments continue to serve as a symbol of Singapore’s unique place in the world.
Second, the protest discourse is unevenly focused on historical figures who are no longer active benefactors. It is a self-serving bias that speaks volumes about how we organise our views of the world.
The Rhodes Scholarship, which enables postgraduates to study at Oxford University, was established by Cecil Rhodes, a British imperialist who has been strongly criticised for his colonial exploitation and racial segregation in Africa.
Despite the controversy, the Rhodes Scholarship is one of the most prestigious international awards. As of 2023, there have been a total of 29 Rhodes Scholars from Singapore.
Should Singaporeans stop applying for the Rhodes Scholarship in light of the founder’s tainted legacy?
Related:
IN FOCUS: No one wants to host the Commonwealth Games. 'Time to let it go', along with its colonial past? 
Commentary: Singapore's decision to forgo the 2026 Commonwealth Games bid was smart REVISITING PUBLIC MONUMENTS IN SINGAPOREIn 2020, the Rhodes Trust resisted calls to support the removal of Cecil Rhodes monuments at Oxford University, focusing on its own “soul-searching” instead.
The organisation said it has increased its annual intake of scholars, including those from African countries. It maintains that its reputation does not rest on Cecil Rhodes, but on the achievements of its scholars.
In a similar vein, the substitution or disposal of colonial statues will not make Singapore a more progressive society. It may make us a more distinctively Asian society, but not necessarily a more inclusive and cohesive community.
Singaporeans should celebrate the striving spirits for public service, recognising that heritage is additive, not subtractive nor exclusionary. References to our history as a colony do not dilute who we are now.
We do not worship colonial imperialism, but we should honour the founding individuals for their endeavours and legacies, and this is what the statues are all about.
Dr Leong Chan-Hoong is Senior Fellow and Head of Social Cohesion Research Programme at the S Rajaratnam School of International Studies (RSIS)jilisakto, Nanyang Technological University.