As cultural and academic exchanges between Singapore and China become more frequent, some Chinese research organisations have even begun active study into Singapore and South-east Asia. For some years now, I have had close contacts with some Chinese academics and institutes studying South-east Asia. By and large, I find them very serious about their work and able to offer fresh perspectives.
It is a pity that many of these institutes are not well-funded and their researchers have limited access to newspapers and publications in South-east Asia. In the case of Singapore, for instance, some institutes subscribe only to Lianhe Zaobao, or , at most, The Straits Times as well. It is a blessing that the Internet has caught on in China as many can now obtain information to complement what they read in the print media.
We are a small nation and cannot expect hordes of Chinese researchers here. But I would expect interest at least on Sino-Singapore ties and this is one area I find Chinese academics need to do a lot more to gain a comprehensive understanding.
Their present knowledge is inadequate in two areas : Our history and our current situation.
An example of the former were the activities of the late Sun Yat Sen in Singapore. China has not done much work on them, let alone in-depth research (I might have missed out some outstanding academics)。 I have a habit of visiting bookshops and university libraries whenever I go on a trip to China. I have gone through quite a number of books on Sun published in China. Most have little to say about what he did in Singapore and those which give a more lengthy account tend to contain errors.
Etched on my memory is a pictorial exhibition in Xi'an on “Sun Yat Sen and Overseas Chinese” (it was a nation-wide tour that was held in all major cities), the only exhibit that has something to do with Singapore is a picture of the Sun Yat Sen Villa. None of the staff present and the few university history lecturers and students there knew Sun had been to Singapore. “What is the Sun Yat Sen Villa for?” they asked.
One more example: The February 1942 Mopping Up Operation in Singapore that killed more than 10,000 people. In China‘s account of wartime atrocities by Japanese military in Asia, this is unfortunately either not recorded, or if recorded, not in great detail or inaccurate.
China‘s research on prominent artists who had great influence on Singapore is also rather limited. Here, the late master artist Xu Beihong and renowned composer Xian Xinhai come to mind.
Xu came here several times, the longest stint was the one from 1939 to 1942, during which many of his masterpieces were completed. Again, the few books written by Chinese experts on Xu, including a biography by Xu‘s wife, offer either sketchy or incorrect accounts of the time Xu spent here.
Xian spent his childhood in Singapore and studied in Yangzheng Primary. Similarly, books penned by Chinese on the life of Xian that I have come across are vague on this. Many in the Chinese cultural circles do not know Xian had his early education here and have never heard of Yangzheng School.
What about research on Singapore‘s present circumstances?
For some Chinese academics, a better understanding of issues in South-east Asia is closely related to the country‘s need for a sound basis for its political and foreign policy - this is why they have very focussed research interest and the fruits of the research are not widely shared. Of course, academic pursuit cannot ignore politics and a researcher in international relations must know where his country stands on certain issues. Still, there must be a line separating academic research and foreign relations.
There are no permanent friends and foes in the global arena and a country‘s foreign policy must adapt constantly to changing circumstances. While foreign relations may see-saw, this is not how academic research should be carried out.
Today, one may sing the praises of a country and turn a blind eye to its problems. But as soon as its ties with China sour, one starts being critical of it. Is there value in this kind of research? But I am glad to say that young Chinese scholars today are very independent-minded, we should see fewer and fewer of those who flip-flop toeing the line. (The writer is a correspondent of Lianhe Zaobao. Translated by Yap Gee Poh)
中國學(xué)者對新加坡研究的不足
● 韓山元
新加坡與中國的文化學(xué)術(shù)交流日益頻密,中國一些研究機構(gòu)還積極開展對新加坡及東南亞的研究。近幾年我跟研究東南亞的中國機構(gòu)與學(xué)者接觸較多,總體而言,這些機構(gòu)與學(xué)者對東南亞的研究相當(dāng)認(rèn)真,見解新穎。
晚晴園是孫中山在新加坡的故居,現(xiàn)為“孫中山南洋紀(jì)念館”。
可惜的是,中國好多研究機構(gòu)經(jīng)費不足,學(xué)者能讀到的東南亞報刊有限。以新加坡來說,有些東南亞研究所只訂閱《聯(lián)合早報》,頂多加《海峽時報》。還好,近年來互聯(lián)網(wǎng)在中國相當(dāng)普及,彌補了閱報的不足。
新加坡是個小國,不能期望研究新加坡的中國學(xué)者多如繁星,但是,就新中關(guān)系這個部分,中國人該有點興趣吧,可是,中國學(xué)者在這個領(lǐng)域所進(jìn)行的研究,卻存在許多空白與不足。
不足有兩個方面:歷史的與現(xiàn)狀的。
歷史方面,舉個例說,對于孫中山在新加坡的活動,中國做的研究不多,深入的更少(也許有些出色的研究我沒有看到)。每回到中國,我總要逛書店或參觀大學(xué)的圖書館,翻閱過好多中國研究孫中山的書,這些著作要嗎對孫中山在新加坡的活動一筆帶過,要嗎記載有錯。
最難忘是在西安看“孫中山與華僑”歷史圖片展(這是個巡回展,先后在全國各大城市舉行),全部展品跟新加坡有關(guān)的只有一張晚晴園的風(fēng)景畫。在場的工作人員與幾位大學(xué)歷史系的老師與學(xué)生,都不知道孫中山到過新加坡,還問“晚晴園是做什么的?”
再舉一例:1942年2月在新加坡發(fā)生的檢證*,日本占領(lǐng)軍殺害了上萬平民,這一筆大血債,在中國有關(guān)日軍在亞洲暴行的記載中,要嗎不見,要嗎不詳或不準(zhǔn),不能不令人遺憾。
中國對于跟新加坡關(guān)系很深、影響不小的文化名人的研究也存有不足之處,留下不少空白。這里舉兩個例子:美術(shù)大師徐悲鴻與音樂家冼星海。
徐悲鴻來過新加坡多次,其中以1939年至1942年那次旅居最久,他的好多重要作品都在這個時期完成??墒?看過幾部中國人研究徐悲鴻的著作,包括徐悲鴻夫人廖靜文著的徐大師的傳記,對于徐大師的獅城歲月,要嗎輕描淡寫,要嗎記載有誤。
冼星海在新加坡度過童年,養(yǎng)正學(xué)校是他的母校??催^好多中國人寫冼星海生平的書,有關(guān)新加坡的部分同樣是語焉不詳。好多中國文化人不知道冼星海在新加坡念過書,養(yǎng)正學(xué)校他們連聽都沒聽過。
再說說現(xiàn)狀的研究,有些中國學(xué)者研究東南亞問題是緊密配合現(xiàn)實政治與外交的需要,這往往使研究成果受到局限。學(xué)術(shù)研究當(dāng)然不可能與政治絕緣,研究國際問題的人當(dāng)然要了解本國的外交政策,但是,學(xué)術(shù)研究與外交畢竟是有區(qū)別的。
國際舞臺沒有永久的敵人和朋友,外交政策必須根據(jù)形勢的變化而作調(diào)整,外交策略可以像月亮,初一十五不一樣,但是學(xué)術(shù)研究這樣搞是不行的。
今天這個是友好國家,你就對它“隱其惡而揚其善”,不講缺點專講優(yōu)點,明天這個國家跟中國不友好了,你就倒過來專講它的陰暗面,這樣的學(xué)術(shù)研究有多少價值?所幸的是,今天中國中青年學(xué)者獨立思考的能力很強,緊跟外交的需要而變調(diào)的學(xué)者今后會越來越少。
It is a pity that many of these institutes are not well-funded and their researchers have limited access to newspapers and publications in South-east Asia. In the case of Singapore, for instance, some institutes subscribe only to Lianhe Zaobao, or , at most, The Straits Times as well. It is a blessing that the Internet has caught on in China as many can now obtain information to complement what they read in the print media.
We are a small nation and cannot expect hordes of Chinese researchers here. But I would expect interest at least on Sino-Singapore ties and this is one area I find Chinese academics need to do a lot more to gain a comprehensive understanding.
Their present knowledge is inadequate in two areas : Our history and our current situation.
An example of the former were the activities of the late Sun Yat Sen in Singapore. China has not done much work on them, let alone in-depth research (I might have missed out some outstanding academics)。 I have a habit of visiting bookshops and university libraries whenever I go on a trip to China. I have gone through quite a number of books on Sun published in China. Most have little to say about what he did in Singapore and those which give a more lengthy account tend to contain errors.
Etched on my memory is a pictorial exhibition in Xi'an on “Sun Yat Sen and Overseas Chinese” (it was a nation-wide tour that was held in all major cities), the only exhibit that has something to do with Singapore is a picture of the Sun Yat Sen Villa. None of the staff present and the few university history lecturers and students there knew Sun had been to Singapore. “What is the Sun Yat Sen Villa for?” they asked.
One more example: The February 1942 Mopping Up Operation in Singapore that killed more than 10,000 people. In China‘s account of wartime atrocities by Japanese military in Asia, this is unfortunately either not recorded, or if recorded, not in great detail or inaccurate.
China‘s research on prominent artists who had great influence on Singapore is also rather limited. Here, the late master artist Xu Beihong and renowned composer Xian Xinhai come to mind.
Xu came here several times, the longest stint was the one from 1939 to 1942, during which many of his masterpieces were completed. Again, the few books written by Chinese experts on Xu, including a biography by Xu‘s wife, offer either sketchy or incorrect accounts of the time Xu spent here.
Xian spent his childhood in Singapore and studied in Yangzheng Primary. Similarly, books penned by Chinese on the life of Xian that I have come across are vague on this. Many in the Chinese cultural circles do not know Xian had his early education here and have never heard of Yangzheng School.
What about research on Singapore‘s present circumstances?
For some Chinese academics, a better understanding of issues in South-east Asia is closely related to the country‘s need for a sound basis for its political and foreign policy - this is why they have very focussed research interest and the fruits of the research are not widely shared. Of course, academic pursuit cannot ignore politics and a researcher in international relations must know where his country stands on certain issues. Still, there must be a line separating academic research and foreign relations.
There are no permanent friends and foes in the global arena and a country‘s foreign policy must adapt constantly to changing circumstances. While foreign relations may see-saw, this is not how academic research should be carried out.
Today, one may sing the praises of a country and turn a blind eye to its problems. But as soon as its ties with China sour, one starts being critical of it. Is there value in this kind of research? But I am glad to say that young Chinese scholars today are very independent-minded, we should see fewer and fewer of those who flip-flop toeing the line. (The writer is a correspondent of Lianhe Zaobao. Translated by Yap Gee Poh)
中國學(xué)者對新加坡研究的不足
● 韓山元
新加坡與中國的文化學(xué)術(shù)交流日益頻密,中國一些研究機構(gòu)還積極開展對新加坡及東南亞的研究。近幾年我跟研究東南亞的中國機構(gòu)與學(xué)者接觸較多,總體而言,這些機構(gòu)與學(xué)者對東南亞的研究相當(dāng)認(rèn)真,見解新穎。
晚晴園是孫中山在新加坡的故居,現(xiàn)為“孫中山南洋紀(jì)念館”。
可惜的是,中國好多研究機構(gòu)經(jīng)費不足,學(xué)者能讀到的東南亞報刊有限。以新加坡來說,有些東南亞研究所只訂閱《聯(lián)合早報》,頂多加《海峽時報》。還好,近年來互聯(lián)網(wǎng)在中國相當(dāng)普及,彌補了閱報的不足。
新加坡是個小國,不能期望研究新加坡的中國學(xué)者多如繁星,但是,就新中關(guān)系這個部分,中國人該有點興趣吧,可是,中國學(xué)者在這個領(lǐng)域所進(jìn)行的研究,卻存在許多空白與不足。
不足有兩個方面:歷史的與現(xiàn)狀的。
歷史方面,舉個例說,對于孫中山在新加坡的活動,中國做的研究不多,深入的更少(也許有些出色的研究我沒有看到)。每回到中國,我總要逛書店或參觀大學(xué)的圖書館,翻閱過好多中國研究孫中山的書,這些著作要嗎對孫中山在新加坡的活動一筆帶過,要嗎記載有錯。
最難忘是在西安看“孫中山與華僑”歷史圖片展(這是個巡回展,先后在全國各大城市舉行),全部展品跟新加坡有關(guān)的只有一張晚晴園的風(fēng)景畫。在場的工作人員與幾位大學(xué)歷史系的老師與學(xué)生,都不知道孫中山到過新加坡,還問“晚晴園是做什么的?”
再舉一例:1942年2月在新加坡發(fā)生的檢證*,日本占領(lǐng)軍殺害了上萬平民,這一筆大血債,在中國有關(guān)日軍在亞洲暴行的記載中,要嗎不見,要嗎不詳或不準(zhǔn),不能不令人遺憾。
中國對于跟新加坡關(guān)系很深、影響不小的文化名人的研究也存有不足之處,留下不少空白。這里舉兩個例子:美術(shù)大師徐悲鴻與音樂家冼星海。
徐悲鴻來過新加坡多次,其中以1939年至1942年那次旅居最久,他的好多重要作品都在這個時期完成??墒?看過幾部中國人研究徐悲鴻的著作,包括徐悲鴻夫人廖靜文著的徐大師的傳記,對于徐大師的獅城歲月,要嗎輕描淡寫,要嗎記載有誤。
冼星海在新加坡度過童年,養(yǎng)正學(xué)校是他的母校??催^好多中國人寫冼星海生平的書,有關(guān)新加坡的部分同樣是語焉不詳。好多中國文化人不知道冼星海在新加坡念過書,養(yǎng)正學(xué)校他們連聽都沒聽過。
再說說現(xiàn)狀的研究,有些中國學(xué)者研究東南亞問題是緊密配合現(xiàn)實政治與外交的需要,這往往使研究成果受到局限。學(xué)術(shù)研究當(dāng)然不可能與政治絕緣,研究國際問題的人當(dāng)然要了解本國的外交政策,但是,學(xué)術(shù)研究與外交畢竟是有區(qū)別的。
國際舞臺沒有永久的敵人和朋友,外交政策必須根據(jù)形勢的變化而作調(diào)整,外交策略可以像月亮,初一十五不一樣,但是學(xué)術(shù)研究這樣搞是不行的。
今天這個是友好國家,你就對它“隱其惡而揚其善”,不講缺點專講優(yōu)點,明天這個國家跟中國不友好了,你就倒過來專講它的陰暗面,這樣的學(xué)術(shù)研究有多少價值?所幸的是,今天中國中青年學(xué)者獨立思考的能力很強,緊跟外交的需要而變調(diào)的學(xué)者今后會越來越少。