What do you think?
Rate this book
Raffles Renounced
Why did independent Singapore celebrate two hundred years of its founding as a British colony in 2019? Why did it do so with a history dating from 1299? And what are the possibilities of doing decolonial history in Singapore? Raffles renounced: Towards a Merdeka History presents essays by historians, literary scholars and artists which grapple with these questions. The volume also reproduces some of the source material used in the play Merdeka / 獨立 / சுதந்திரம் (Wild Rice, 2019). Taken together, the book shows how the contradictions of independent nationhood haunt Singaporeans’ collective and personal stories about Merdeka. It points to the need for a Merdeka history: an open and fearless culture of historical reckoning that not only untangles us from colonial narratives, but proposes emancipatory possibilities.
- GenresNonfictionHistory
272 pages, Paperback
Published January 1, 2021
19 people are currently reading
200 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 16 of 16 reviews
January 17, 2021
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.
Thank you to Ethos Books for the ARC in exchange for an honest review!
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.
Thank you to Ethos Books for the ARC in exchange for an honest review!
February 28, 2021
What an interesting book! And important. It needed to be written - there was something quite puzzling and surreal about the bicentennial year here in Singapore, and I welcomed the chance to explore that whole experience.
I appreciated the variety of voices and styles in the presentations in the book, shining light from different perspectives upon this man Raffles and the experience of colonialism, and asking hard questions about the way history is told, and to what agenda.
It’s very easy to look at the surface success and prosperity of Singapore and to imagine that colonialism didn’t do it much harm compared with some other countries. This book unpicks and challenges that notion, lifting the stone of Singapore’s nation-building myths and examining the life roiling beneath. Pain and fury. Stories of suffering and struggle. Language stolen and reclaimed. Humiliating oppression and organised resistance. Questions about alternative trajectories, how things might have developed had Raffles not disrupted the powers and dreams of the Malay world.
I found myself very struck by how different the history of Singapore sounds and feels from a Malay perspective, especially when you read the accounts of how Raffles intimidated and manipulated the local powers to gain his foothold here. It’s very common - especially in the current climate of unease around the place of ‘foreigners’ in Singapore - common to hear people emphasising that we are a nation of immigrants and incomers, it has always been thus. But it is way more complicated than that, if you look at the longer history. But then even the story of immigration is shaped by the impact of colonialism in the countries people left behind. How can we make sense of the present - and how we treat each other - without also understanding and processing the traumatic past, in all its complex diversity and layers.
This is one of those books that has led me to buy three more books! The more I learn, the more I realise I don’t know! There is a certain comfort in accepting that I will probably never reach certainty about most of what exists in this world!!! And there is no single narrative that can capture it all, nor even my own one little life.
I appreciated the variety of voices and styles in the presentations in the book, shining light from different perspectives upon this man Raffles and the experience of colonialism, and asking hard questions about the way history is told, and to what agenda.
It’s very easy to look at the surface success and prosperity of Singapore and to imagine that colonialism didn’t do it much harm compared with some other countries. This book unpicks and challenges that notion, lifting the stone of Singapore’s nation-building myths and examining the life roiling beneath. Pain and fury. Stories of suffering and struggle. Language stolen and reclaimed. Humiliating oppression and organised resistance. Questions about alternative trajectories, how things might have developed had Raffles not disrupted the powers and dreams of the Malay world.
I found myself very struck by how different the history of Singapore sounds and feels from a Malay perspective, especially when you read the accounts of how Raffles intimidated and manipulated the local powers to gain his foothold here. It’s very common - especially in the current climate of unease around the place of ‘foreigners’ in Singapore - common to hear people emphasising that we are a nation of immigrants and incomers, it has always been thus. But it is way more complicated than that, if you look at the longer history. But then even the story of immigration is shaped by the impact of colonialism in the countries people left behind. How can we make sense of the present - and how we treat each other - without also understanding and processing the traumatic past, in all its complex diversity and layers.
This is one of those books that has led me to buy three more books! The more I learn, the more I realise I don’t know! There is a certain comfort in accepting that I will probably never reach certainty about most of what exists in this world!!! And there is no single narrative that can capture it all, nor even my own one little life.
May 29, 2021
A thought-provoking exposé of local historical narratives and colonial legacies, mainly centred around Singapore’s bicentennial commemoration in 2019. What impressed me was the broad scope of writing it contained which kept me engaged (despite the slow start)—ranging from interviews, research essays, and even analyses of relevant anti-colonial artworks.
February 5, 2021
Personally found it quite dense for the average reader, but I can't deny that this is an extremely important contribution to Singaporean literature. I came away from the book with a new understanding of the study of history: as a discipline to tell stories, rather than one that only aims to recount. In other words, history will never be objective. History can be bent, manipulated and harnessed to obscure, to gloss over or to reveal stories. History is a tool, one that different actors wield for different purposes.
I think every Singaporean should read this, not just to understand how we have been colonised and continue to be colonised (in our minds), but more crucially, how we can move forward from here. The genre of this book is non-fiction but I'd like to think it is, in fact, a massive undertaking of the imagination - one that seeks to imagine a Singapore that is free from the mental and emotional shackles of colonialism.
I'll definitely have to re-read this to fully grasp what every essay is trying to convey, but that's what makes a book a worthy addition to a bookshelf - when it has the potential to be read over and over again. :)
I think every Singaporean should read this, not just to understand how we have been colonised and continue to be colonised (in our minds), but more crucially, how we can move forward from here. The genre of this book is non-fiction but I'd like to think it is, in fact, a massive undertaking of the imagination - one that seeks to imagine a Singapore that is free from the mental and emotional shackles of colonialism.
I'll definitely have to re-read this to fully grasp what every essay is trying to convey, but that's what makes a book a worthy addition to a bookshelf - when it has the potential to be read over and over again. :)
November 21, 2023
This was a very well-written book tackling the idea that Singapore has struggled to come to terms with both its own colonisation by the British, but also the neocoloniality of many of its own actions as an independent state. While I am unclear how accurate its alternative interpretations of history are (relative to mainstream state narratives), or how reliable the sources used are, what emerges most clearly is the truth of the feelings that the writers give voice to. Regardless of whether or not their interpretations of history are justified, there is certainly a whole corpus of literature, arguments and anxieties that are not even recognised in official narratives, and this book is highly effective in giving voice to the feelings of loss, injustice and anger that pervade these works. Ultimately, in challenging the idea that there can only be one 'correct' view of history, this book offers the reader a chance avoid what is often an uncritical acceptance of mainstream narratives, whether or not they agree with the alternative put forward in the book.
August 25, 2021
Great essays from some contributors like Lysa Hong. But editorial gestures are confused when making an attempt at intertextuality (ex what are those Merdeka excerpts at the end of the anthology for)? Editorial voice of anticoloniality reads so singularly for an anthology insisting on multiple perspectives.
April 28, 2024
I have been meaning to read this for a while because I wanted to expose myself to alternative accounts of Singapore's history. This was definitely a dense read but it was worth it. I like how it dissects the meaning of the bicentennial and examines how colonialism is deeply rooted in the nation-building narrative.
However, I have mixed feelings about this book as a whole as it is very incohesive. It is an odd mish-mash of essays, interviews and historical texts, with no coherent structure or flow. Individually, some essays were bangers, particularly the sixth (Why Raffles is Still Standing: Colonialism, Migration and Singapore's Scripting of the Present) and seventh ones (Finding Merdeka in a World of Statues: Singpore's Colonial Pageant Remade and Unmade), while some were a slog to get through. The last 50 or so pages were a hodge-podge of excerpts from historical texts and while some enriched the book's themes, it is not clear what purpose the others served.
Much of the book presumes you have some background knowledge on certain historical events and I would have liked for the authors to provide some context on them. My least favourite essays were the ones that were likely meant to be companions to the wild rice play and events during the bicentennial and I skimmed through them. They would probably have been more meaningful for those who have seen the play/attended the events.
Some of my favourite quotes:
It is easy from our position in time to romanticise the 'sacrifice' of those generations as heroic. Their lives, however, did not consciously involve a nation-building project in mind, but rather survival within an oppressive enterprise which they could not escape simply due to circumstances they were born into. The colonial project did not have their interests at heart, even as it made British capitalists fabulously rich.
The statement "colonialism had been beneficial" (even if only 60%) judges colonialism using its internal logic and cannot be proven objectively true outside of the logic of colonisation ..."beneficial" is the wrong adjective to use since the supposed 'benefits' flowed from the coloniser's resolution of problems created by his colonial ambitions and interests in the first place.
Statues, like all totemic idols, only have as much power as we give them. The quest to unshackle our minds and systems cannot stop at removing symbols. Understanding our historical rootedness in the Malay world offers a repository for how to imagine - and work towards, a decolonial future.
The book ends very fittingly with an excerpt from Mr S Rajaratnam's 1984 speech:
So from our point of view to push a Singaporean's historic awareness beyond 1819 would have been a misuse of history; to plunge Singapore into the kind of genocidal madness that racial, communal and religious imperialism is today devastating so many underdeveloped and even developed countries...Towards this end Singapore took a step unprecedented in the history of anti-imperialist nationalism. After attaining independence in 1965 there was debate as to who should be declared the founding fathers of Singapore. The debate was brought to an abrupt end when the government fixed responsibility for this on Sir Stamford Raffles.
However, I have mixed feelings about this book as a whole as it is very incohesive. It is an odd mish-mash of essays, interviews and historical texts, with no coherent structure or flow. Individually, some essays were bangers, particularly the sixth (Why Raffles is Still Standing: Colonialism, Migration and Singapore's Scripting of the Present) and seventh ones (Finding Merdeka in a World of Statues: Singpore's Colonial Pageant Remade and Unmade), while some were a slog to get through. The last 50 or so pages were a hodge-podge of excerpts from historical texts and while some enriched the book's themes, it is not clear what purpose the others served.
Much of the book presumes you have some background knowledge on certain historical events and I would have liked for the authors to provide some context on them. My least favourite essays were the ones that were likely meant to be companions to the wild rice play and events during the bicentennial and I skimmed through them. They would probably have been more meaningful for those who have seen the play/attended the events.
Some of my favourite quotes:
It is easy from our position in time to romanticise the 'sacrifice' of those generations as heroic. Their lives, however, did not consciously involve a nation-building project in mind, but rather survival within an oppressive enterprise which they could not escape simply due to circumstances they were born into. The colonial project did not have their interests at heart, even as it made British capitalists fabulously rich.
The statement "colonialism had been beneficial" (even if only 60%) judges colonialism using its internal logic and cannot be proven objectively true outside of the logic of colonisation ..."beneficial" is the wrong adjective to use since the supposed 'benefits' flowed from the coloniser's resolution of problems created by his colonial ambitions and interests in the first place.
Statues, like all totemic idols, only have as much power as we give them. The quest to unshackle our minds and systems cannot stop at removing symbols. Understanding our historical rootedness in the Malay world offers a repository for how to imagine - and work towards, a decolonial future.
The book ends very fittingly with an excerpt from Mr S Rajaratnam's 1984 speech:
So from our point of view to push a Singaporean's historic awareness beyond 1819 would have been a misuse of history; to plunge Singapore into the kind of genocidal madness that racial, communal and religious imperialism is today devastating so many underdeveloped and even developed countries...Towards this end Singapore took a step unprecedented in the history of anti-imperialist nationalism. After attaining independence in 1965 there was debate as to who should be declared the founding fathers of Singapore. The debate was brought to an abrupt end when the government fixed responsibility for this on Sir Stamford Raffles.
Read
February 8, 2021I can understand some people not liking the Raffles landing commemoration two years ago; writing a whole book about it seems over heightened in the displeasure: in 2021, soon after the book's appearance, I am not sure anyone still remembers -any- commemoration event of 2019
Taking this in conjunction with the issue of "chinese privilege", discussed in Singapore liberal circles since 2014 at least, there seems to be a tendency to attach dissatisfaction with current situation to Raffles, and to British colonialism generally; it is possible to have other might have beens, e.g., if Britain had already left in 1965, would it have been possible for Singapore to go independent? if there was no vietnam war, would Singapore have been able to industrialize so quickly?
Taking this in conjunction with the issue of "chinese privilege", discussed in Singapore liberal circles since 2014 at least, there seems to be a tendency to attach dissatisfaction with current situation to Raffles, and to British colonialism generally; it is possible to have other might have beens, e.g., if Britain had already left in 1965, would it have been possible for Singapore to go independent? if there was no vietnam war, would Singapore have been able to industrialize so quickly?
July 13, 2025
Excellent book that really presents compelling evidence that Singapore's "popular narrative" of its founding i.e. the one we teach in schools and speak of during national day is a political tool. It has been crafted this way to create a culture of obedience and "peace(?)" amongst its people. While the 3/4 of the book really poked holes in this strategy, the final quarter of speeches, sheds some light on why this might have been a necessary move. Overall, I appreciated how the book highlights alternative extraordinary leaders who are brave, outspoken and do not follow blindly. Singaporeans are made to feel like we have a culture of obedience and subservience. That's because we don't learn about these other revolutionary leaders besides LKY. I wish we did. It's such a loss that we don't.
October 21, 2022
This is a good book of essays, definitely and I loved how thought-provoking they were. What I didn’t enjoy was how certain points and examples were repeated back to back in different essays by different contributors - it felt like I was reading the same thing and was quite frustrating at times.
March 12, 2021
A much needed critical analysis of "Merdeka" and colonial legacies in Singapore.
January 12, 2022
i loved this what
March 16, 2022
I read everything but the last chapter, very fascinating and enlightening read, with yet more perspectives to consider when reading history both for Singapore and in general
August 6, 2023
A great companion piece to the Merdeka play, but some articles felt repetitive in themes and perspectives.
May 31, 2025
note to self: read again in a year or two. current power level insufficient to fully grasp whatever this book is
March 9, 2022
Wow. I have so many words about the lucid and brilliantly sharp essays here but the main ones I have are that this book is absolutely vital reading for anyone interested in Singapore. I particularly enjoyed Faris Joraimi's writing on statues!
Displaying 1 - 16 of 16 reviews