Why studying history in Singapore made me question England’s national curriculum

National University of Singapore. Image courtesy: Georgia O’Keeffe

Sitting in my first tutorial at the National University of Singapore (NUS) as a British exchange student, I found myself in a rather awkward position as we discussed a topic I knew little about - the impact of Britain and Sir Stamford Raffles on Singapore’s past and present. This was disconcerting considering I started learning history at the age of six in a British school – this tends to start with topics such as the The Vikings, Romans, Anglo-Saxons and local histories before moving on to the World Wars, Tudors, Victorians, the Industrial Revolution and the slave trade. It is likely that some of these topics will get repeated two or even three times. Despite receiving a history education from such a young age in British schools, an incredibly critical and large topic of history is frequently overlooked: the British Empire.

I spoke to a few UCL History students who all shared very similar stories claiming that the British Empire was a neglected area of history throughout school. One individual who reportedly studied the Russian Revolution, Cold War and Stuarts claimed that exposing students to this period of history is extremely valuable as it allows people to better understand the colonial mentality that persists in the modern day. Another student who studied the Tudors and the Nazis commented that, at best, he studied “the bookends of the British Empire” and had to actively seek information through extracurricular activities. A third student told me that, while she enjoyed studying the United States and the Tudors (for the third time) at A Level, she would have preferred to focus on a topic such as the British Raj or ‘the scramble for Africa’.

It remains astonishing that an institution spanning five centuries which left an indelible impact on countless parts of the world is often overlooked. Many people might not realise just how recent some of these events were. It was only slightly over 100 years ago that the Empire was at its largest and just short of sixty years ago that Singapore gained independence from Britain. Singapore is just one on a rather lengthy list of places which still feel and discuss the impact of British rule. The government sought to develop a true national identity after gaining independence, which is still commonly discussed. On this subject, my NUS professor asserted that “colonialism undeniably shaped the socio-cultural and economic landscape of post-colonial Singapore”. He noted that, despite transforming Singapore from a fishing village to a major trading port and enhancing cultural diversity as well as legal and administrative systems, there are a number of negative aspects which need to be considered: the “exploitation of resources, social-economic inequalities and the lasting effects on local societies” to name a few. 144 years of British rule undeniably left a toxicity in the country which has contributed to some of the issues Singapore with racism for example. While there is a plethora of differing opinions regarding how beneficial or harmful the British were, their impact was undeniably huge, and it should not have taken travelling 6700 miles to fully realise this. 

It is vital to note that this gap in Britain’s national curriculum is not to be blamed on individuals, or even institutions much of the time. One UCL History professor drew my attention to the material constraints put on schoolteachers, claiming that many educators he encounters are willing to incorporate the British Empire into their teaching but are restricted by the current state of the education system. Inadequate funding and resources make it challenging to allocate time for developing new materials and/or enhancing teachers’ subject knowledge. Demanding workloads also push teachers towards relying on familiar material. This History professor also remarks that the influence of the Conservative governments has not been conducive to encouraging critical examination of British history which has potentially discouraged educators from exploring alternative teaching approaches. 

Part of the problem lies in the very fact that teaching the British Empire in school is not mandatory. Whilst Singaporean students learn about the topic both in primary and secondary school, British children either do not ever learn about it or merely skirt around the edges. An NUS Political Science student informed me that in Singapore, it was a key part of their national education and all students had studied it. This is understandable considering its centrality to their county’s history, but it is shocking and disappointing that these conversations are not being had in the country which led the colonial regime. 

So much of the world today has roots in the imperial age in some form. From borders and population movements to racial discrimination and immigration, the British Empire ought to be a mandatory part of history lessons in school, or at least aspects of it. The teaching should not lean towards excessive glorification nor unrestricted criticism but should strike a balance which portrays an honest and appropriate history. This could spark discussions which in turn will create an awareness, an understanding and a level of respect for the past.