Some members of the committee
Some members of the committee
Some members of the committee

Historically important monument but no historians on committee

The composition of the committee which will look into the establishment of a “Founders’ Memorial” in Singapore has come under question.

The 15-member panel, which will collect public feedback on the nature of the memorial the next 18 months, was announced on 30 June.

It will be headed by Lee Tzu Yang, who is also the chairman of The Esplanade.

Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong had said in Parliament in April that the late former leader of Singapore, Lee Kuan Yew, “was always conscious that he did not act alone, but as a member of a team.”

“His core team included Goh Keng Swee, S Rajaratnam, Othman Wok, Hon Sui Sen, Lim Kim San, amongst others.”

He added, “So, it is appropriate that we consider how to honour not just Mr Lee, but also our other founding fathers.”

The idea for a Founders’ Memorial was soon suggested and the committee appointed.

However, for such a historically important monument, questions are being asked about why there are no historians on the committee.

The 15-member panel consists of academics, businessmen, a community club chairman, a school principal, an ambassador and even a newspaper editor, among others.

“Given that the Founders’ Memorial will be dedicated to historical personalities who shaped Singapore’s history, I am intrigued that not a single professional historian is on the committee,” Ms Chan Cheng Lin wrote in a letter to the Straits Times forum page on Friday.

“There are many history professors from the National University of Singapore and the Nanyang Technological University, as well as a handful of independent history researchers and overseas-based Singaporean historians, who specialise in Singapore history,” he said.

“With their expertise, they will be able to provide valuable input to this important history-related project. Unfortunately, none of them is on the committee.”

The chairman of the committee, however, told the media on 30 June, “(The memorial is) not about coming up with a defined view of history, but about stimulating interest in how we became an independent nation, and the ideals and values … of our founding generation of leaders.”

Mr Lee Tzu Yang said that the memorial is meant to “unify Singaporeans”, not just in the present day, but also “for future generations to inspire them with stories of how the nation came to be”.

Subscribe
Notify of
1 Comment
Newest
Oldest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
You May Also Like

从医生、社运份子到民主党主席 淡马亚展望狮城民主前景

于去年9月接任民主党主席的淡马亚医生(Paul Tambyah),日前接受亚洲新闻台记者巴拉蒂专访,针对医疗课题、反对党和公民社会、人权等社会议题侃侃而谈,认为虽然眼前荆棘满途,但乐观看待狮城民主社会发展,深信一党独大终会迎来终结。 淡马亚医生是国立大学医学教授,也是国大医院传染病学部高级顾问。有着传染病学研究专业背景,引导他投入社会运动,参与新加坡爱之病行动小组(Action For AIDS),与其他社运份子一起,尝试减少对艾滋病的偏见和歧视。 他的政治觉醒也是从此过程而来。他发现,新加坡人只要对某事拥有强烈信念,据理力争足以影响政府决策。随后,淡马亚对社运更加投入,包括创办了人权倡议组织“尊严”“MARUAH”。 但他体认到,公民社会可以针对各种议题发声,但是操纵杆仍掌握在政府手上,要想作出有影响力的改变,“诚如前总理吴作栋所言,你必须参与政党政治。” 这是当前在我国情境下能做的,即使淡马亚不完全认同。他对比国外扮演更显著角色的社运份子,他们不阻碍且鼓励公民社会成长,甚至获得政府拨款,和政府相互拉锯,但却获得平等尊重。 公民社会“前进三步,退两步” 淡马亚形容,新加坡的社运是“进三步,又退两步”。例如“尊严”获注册为政治组织,但同时又受限无法与其他海外公民组织合作,也不能接受海外献金。 “尊严”原本为东盟人权框架服务,但是办活动邀请菲律宾的人权份子,就要申请准证,这是造成东盟人权机制运作困难的原因之一。 至于芳林公园演说者角落也有诸多限制,例如必须检查出席集会者的身份证,确保没有外籍人士干涉。…

PSP calls for “greater affirmative action” by the authorities following reports of high number of local employers practicing discriminatory hiring

The Progress Singapore Party (PSP) took to Facebook today (10 August) to…

Twelve F-35 fighter jets at S$3.7 billion cost more than entire 2019 budget of MSF

It was reported yesterday that the US has approved the sale of…

张素兰:总理新闻秘书礼拜天也要工作

人权律师、前政治拘留者张素兰,今早在功能八号氏族会脸书专页,揶揄总理新闻秘书周日休假也要加班工作。 事缘本周日(本月1日),李总理新闻秘书张俪霖,代表总理向本社总编许渊臣发函,指本社英语站在8月15日刊登的一篇评论,复述针对总理的不实指控,要求本社撤下并在三日内道歉。 但张素兰指出,虽然秘书加班,用着公家的笔墨,撰写了长达三页含有威胁意味信函,但他加班并不是在为国家公务工作。 “总理因为有关评论被指复述此前他弟妹作出的指控,感到不满。在信中,总理称选择不起诉弟妹,不应被诠释为容许他人复述和散播这些指控。” 但张素兰也指出,随着总理要求本社总编许渊臣移除有关文章、并作出道歉,这同样也可视作总理可能已改变主意,不再避忌是否起诉弟妹李显扬和李玮玲医生。 她认为,如果诉诸诉讼,总理也要准备应对,许渊臣可邀请其弟妹作为证人,甚至请他们成为第二或第三答辩人。 “作为寻常百姓,我们并不知道真相。总理称在2017年的国会辩论中已给与充分解释,但仍是片面的”,张素兰也指出,她认为当时为了私人纠纷,特别召开听证会,乃是浪费公帑且滥用议会程序。更何况当时总理弟妹也没有受邀对此事进行辩解。 “或许是时候透过法庭来解决此事。” 除了张素兰外,昨日资深媒体人兼《海峡时报》前副总编辑默乐(Bertha Henson)则质问,总理选择不起诉弟妹,但是不容许他人复述、散播他们的指控,难道意味着总理的弟妹可以畅所欲言,但是其他人如果重复他们的言论就不可以?