6 days ago
Integrating New Sources, Voices, and Perspectives in Singapore's History
First-hand accounts from leaders including Lee Kuan Yew and Goh Keng Swee have cast the country's separation from Malaysia in 1965 in a new light.
History is not a fixed narrative. It involves evolving accounts of the past shaped by those who lived it, along with those who remember, interpret, and examine them. As Singaporeans celebrate the 60th birthday of their country as an independent nation-state this month, it is a good time to reflect on how the history of Singapore has developed over time, particularly when new primary sources such as artifacts, historical documents, cabinet papers, and first-hand accounts come to light. Such additions can enhance and deepen our understanding of the Singaporean national identity, narratives, and purpose, as well as illuminate the complex dynamics of its politics and people.
For a significant part of the 20th century, a dominant version of Singapore's history traced its founding to 1819, with the arrival of Sir Stamford Raffles and his subsequent colonial endeavors. School textbooks and past official narratives commonly marked this date as the starting point of 'modern' Singapore. However, this interpretation, while influential, has since been re-examined in light of compelling primary sources that stretch back centuries earlier, to a thriving community and port city known as Temasek.
These sources reveal that pre-colonial Singapore was far from a sleepy fishing village. The Sejarah Melayu (Malay Annals), a 17th-century literary and historical compilation in Jawi, and Chinese records from the Yuan and Ming dynasties, indicate that a strategically important and economically thriving settlement existed as early as the 14th century. Temasek was mentioned as a regional trading port, and archaeological work in Fort Canning, Empress Place, and other parts of the island has confirmed the presence of ancient settlements on Singapore island.
These sources challenge the idea that Singapore's history began with British colonization. Rather, they place Singapore within a richly interconnected regional maritime network, a hub that continuously interacted with empires and traders long before the arrival of the British. Recognizing this pre-colonial heritage honors the broader Southeast Asian – and Malay – context in which Singapore existed and developed.
Just as the writing of Singapore's premodern history has evolved, the country's modern political history is undergoing a similar revision, with the emergence of new evidence and the integration of additional primary accounts. A central example of this is the narrative of Singapore's separation from Malaysia in 1965.
Singapore officially joined the Federation of Malaysia in September 1963. However, the increasing differences between the governments of Singapore and Malaysia led to a separation in August 1965.
For decades, many Singaporeans grew up with the impression that the country was 'kicked out' of the Malaysian Federation, casting the republic as the reluctant child of independence, unwanted and thrust into statehood unprepared.
While dramatic, this version of events has increasingly been scrutinized by certain scholars and researchers, who have examined primary documents, including cabinet papers, letters and contemporary first-hand accounts, which reveal a more complex picture. These include the memoirs of then-Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew and the oral history accounts of then-Finance Minister Dr. Goh Keng Swee and Law Minister E.W. Barker, which can be found in the National Archives of Singapore.
A significant piece of evidence that has come to light in recent years is the 'Albatross File,' a remarkable collection of notes and documents that Goh compiled during the secret negotiations with Malaysia. Based on excerpts seen by this author, the Albatross File illustrates how Goh came to view Singapore's integration into Malaysia in 1963 as increasingly unworkable, particularly due to the deep structural and political-economic divides between Malaya and Singapore.
By December 2025, the previously confidential contents of the file will be published for the first time in a new book authorized by the Singaporean government. This book will provide the public with more details about the negotiations that preceded the separation.
The personal accounts of these three leaders reveal that Singapore's separation from Malaysia was not imposed unilaterally. Instead, it was a carefully negotiated and planned outcome pursued out of necessity and strategic foresight.
In a previously top secret memorandum to the cabinet, Lee wrote in early 1965 that Malaysian Prime Minister Tunku Abdul Rahman mentioned to Goh in December 1964 about his desire to have Singapore 'hived off' from Malaya. Lee's analysis was the 'greatest attraction of this re-arrangement is our hope to get the benefit of both worlds, the common market, political stability with economic expansion, and autonomy in Singapore, without interference from K.L.' or Kuala Lumpur, the capital of Malaysia.
In Goh's handwritten notes, he recorded the meeting with Malaysian ministers Tun Razak and Dato Isamil on the morning of July 20, 1965. In Tun Razak's office, he proposed the separation. According to Goh's oral history interview, he told them that the only way forward 'was for Singapore to secede completely' and that this should be 'done very quickly and very quietly, and presented a fait accompli.'
Then, in July 1965, according to Lee's memoir and Barker's oral history account, Lee asked Barker to draft legal documents anticipating the state's separation and independence, revealing that legal, administrative, and political preparations were well underway, long before the televised declaration of separation.
While familiar to academics and researchers who have accessed the National Archives, these first-hand sources undermine the earlier portrayal of Singapore as a reluctant recipient of independence, and instead positions the country's leaders as strategic decision-makers, actively working toward the possibility of sovereign independence.
Understanding history through these recently surfaced documents and perspectives does more than simply correct the record; it can potentially rejuvenate our sense of citizenship and deepen our shared identity. A primary source, like a cabinet paper, if read carefully, does not just tell us what happened; it tells us why it happened the way it did, and how leaders responded in times of crisis.
These findings strengthen the image of Singapore's leaders as political architects with foresight, determination, and clarity of purpose, as well as provide Singaporeans with a deeper and more nuanced understanding of this vital phase in the nation's history.
As more documents are declassified and made available to the public, educators, historians, and the public have a critical role in responsibly interpreting these materials. The evolving understanding of the past is a result of cumulative learning, where we must be open to new discoveries, reinterpretations, and retellings.
This calls for flexibility in the design of the Singaporean school curriculum, enabling students to explore multiple narratives and engage with different types of sources, whether it's an ancient Chinese document describing Temasek or Goh's Albatross File. Teaching history is less about memorizing dates than about analyzing evidence, interpreting motives, and asking critical questions.
Rather than fear the revision of history, we should embrace it as a sign of a mature, analytical, reflective and forward-looking society. The understanding of Singapore, whether as ancient Temasek or a modern independent republic, will continue to evolve as researchers uncover more sources and make space for diverse viewpoints and richer evidence.
Let us adopt a spirit of intellectual humility and curiosity, recognizing that history is not inscribed in stone, but a vibrant dialogue between the past and the present. By doing so, the national narratives become not only more accurate and inclusive, but also more empowering, so as to help us make better sense of our present and shape a more thoughtful and purposeful future.
