In a Facebook post on 26 June 2025, Ho Ching, former chief executive of Temasek Holdings and spouse of former prime minister Lee Hsien Loong, asserted that modern Singapore’s origins began in 1819 with Sir Stamford Raffles.
She was referring to suggestions that Singapore’s founding dates back to the 1300s, with the arrival of Sang Nila Utama.
Ho cautioned against what she described as a fervour of anti-colonialism or anti-British sentiment, warning against efforts to rewrite the founding of modern Singapore.
However, her remarks quickly drew backlash from scholars, writers and netizens, who criticised her account as overly narrow and politically motivated.
Academic Donald Low questioned the intent behind Ho’s warning, noting that there is no significant anti-colonial movement in Singapore seeking to erase colonial history or remove statues.
In her FB post, Ho acknowledged that some historical records mention “Tumasik” (believed to be an early name for Singapore) in Majapahit, Yuan dynasty, and possibly Vietnamese sources.
However, she stressed that these references were vague and did not suggest the presence of a large or significant kingdom.
She pointed to archaeological finds such as Chinese pottery and the remains of a chieftain’s dwelling at Fort Canning, but argued that this evidence did not support the idea of a continuous or self-sufficient settlement.
“Yet, there were no continual mention of Tumasik post the 1300s for several centuries, until around the time of European colonisation and trade expeditions in the 1600s and 1700s. The Portuguese mapped parts of the Singapore island, for instance,” Ho claimed.
Ho characterised the island as a transient stop or refuge for displaced nobles from regional powers such as Malacca, Johor, Siam, and others. She described Singapore as lying on the periphery of great Southeast Asian empires like Majapahit, Brunei, Angkor, and Siam.
“Little Singapore is like one of the refugee stops for defeated princes or losing minor royalties en route to further and safer havens—until the Europeans appeared and began their era through the power of guns, or the power of the contract, as in the case of Raffles vis-à-vis Singapore.”
Ho Ching: Raffles as founder of modern Singapore; cautions against “anti-colonial fervour”
Ho credited Sir Stamford Raffles with giving Singapore its modern identity through the establishment of a free port in 1819, designed to rival Dutch-controlled Batavia.
“Raffles gave life to Singapore as a free port, in competition against Batavia run by the Dutch in modern-day Indonesia, which was even home to a Chinese Hakka ‘kingdom’—defeated along with other minor kingdoms by the Dutch, who gradually colonised various bits to leave behind what is now Indonesia.”
She concluded: “So the history of modern Singapore really began in 1819, and not in the 1300s.”
Ho also cautioned against attempts to revise Singapore’s historical narrative to predate 1819, warning that such efforts were motivated by “anti-colonial fervour.”
“So let’s not, in a fervour of anti-colonialism or anti-British sentiment, try to rewrite the founding of modern Singapore,” she wrote.
“Unlike many other former colonies, we have not tried to pull down statues or deny the arc of history, however distasteful or uncomfortable to present-day sensitivities or sentiments.”
Donald Low rebuts Ho Ching’s post, says no culture war exists over pre-Raffles history in Singapore
Donald Low, Senior Lecturer and Professor of Practice at the Institute of Public Policy at Hong Kong University of Science & Technology, argued that while it’s undeniable that Singapore’s modern history began with Raffles, this is a tautological statement since the concept of “modernity” itself is a Western, post-Enlightenment idea.
Low noted that many individuals more qualified than himself have highlighted how Ho’s portrayal of Singapore’s pre-colonial history was selective, ahistorical, and overlooked substantial research showing that Singapore was an integral part of regional and global trade networks long before the arrival of Western colonisers.
He expressed skepticism about why Ho made her post warning against anti-colonial fervour, noting that there is no significant anti-colonial movement in Singapore seeking to erase colonial history or remove statues.
Instead, those questioning the idea that Singapore’s economic life only began with Raffles are serious historians, not radicals.
He pointed out that Singapore’s universities lack movements aimed at eradicating colonial influence, and if anything, students often don’t fully understand what a “colonial attitude” is or why it might be problematic.
Low concluded that there are no real culture wars in Singapore over pre-Raffles history, with historians generally agreeing Singapore existed meaningfully before 1819, though most Singaporeans probably don’t care much.
He warned that by presenting a one-sided and ahistorical view, Ho Ching might create cultural divisions where none previously existed, noting humorously that ChatGPT named her the “most divisive Singaporean influencer on Facebook.”
Cherian George: 700 years of history affirms Singapore’s intercultural Southeast Asian identity
Cherian George, Professor of Media Studies at Hong Kong Baptist University, echoed Low’s sentiments. Commenting on Low’s post, he questioned the impulse to erase Singapore’s long pre-colonial history.
“Why would one want to trash our 700-year saga?” he asked. “Personally, I find this story deeply meaningful. It tells me how intercultural connection is part of who we are as Southeast Asians. We did not need imperialists from Europe to teach us that.”
George noted that colonial rule actually “hardened borders and imposed racial categories” rather than encouraging multiculturalism. He expressed concern over attempts to downplay this rich legacy: “What is the Singapore they prefer to manufacture and sell? I worry.”
Sonny Liew: State once backed the very 700-year narrative
Graphic novelist Sonny Liew also weighed in, questioning why Ho framed the “700 Years” narrative as a threat—especially when it was arguably driven or endorsed by the state in the first place.
He pointed out that the “700 Years” historical framework, which highlights Singapore’s long-standing regional ties, was associated with establishment figures such as historian Tan Tai Yong.
Liew speculated that this framework may have emerged in the context of shifting geopolitical interests or even reactions to the unpopular 2013 Population White Paper.
“Both [narratives] felt like instrumental readings of history—attempts at shaping attitudes according to the state’s preferred priorities. So this supposed schism seems like left hand fighting with right hand,” he remarked.
Netizens emphasise Singapore’s Malay roots and pre-colonial legacy beyond Raffles
Some netizens argued that Singapore’s history cannot be confined to a colonial timeline.
Many asserted that the island was part of the wider Malay world, known as Tanah Melayu, and was under the Johor-Riau Sultanate before Raffles arrived.
They cited evidence of Temasek’s presence in Yuan dynasty records and Majapahit texts, as well as Portuguese maps.
Some noted that although Southeast Asian civilisations did not leave behind massive stone monuments, they thrived through trade, migration, and diplomacy.
One netizen pointedly remarked that Raffles did not found Singapore on an empty island—it was already governed by Malay rulers and home to a local population.
Others felt Ho was overly preoccupied with rejecting anti-colonial narratives, leading her to undervalue indigenous and regional history.
Some urged her to engage more deeply with the pre-colonial Malay context and revisit historical exhibitions such as those showcased during SG50.
As one comment summed up: “Colonisers remain colonisers—regardless of what they contributed to economic development.”
The post Ho Ching warns against anti-colonial fervour; views on pre-1819 history spark backlash appeared first on The Online Citizen.
