Earning a place in history

LATELY, there has been some discussion on whether we should recognise Sybil Kathigasu (inset pic), who was awarded the George Medal for bravery in helping anti-Japanese guerillas during the Japanese Occupation of Malaya, in our history books.

Some have highlighted her prominence and deeds during that period and also whether she fought against British colonialism or opposed the Malayan Union.

Some historians have urged that history must be respected as an established discipline of knowledge that should never be tinkered with. While this may be true, upon close examination of history, one will find that the chronicles of this discipline are littered with legends and myths, inaccurate information, falsehood, exaggeration, embellishment and much confusion.

For example, history states that James Watt invented the steam engine but in actual fact it was Thomas Newcomen. Watt just improved Newcomen’s invention.

Similarly, we were taught that the Church persecuted Galileo and imprisoned him in a dark cell. But evidence proves that he was actually persecuted by his fellow scientist and his former friend Pope Urban VIII. Galileo’s imprisonment was a house arrest in grand villas where he had ample time to write his discourses on Two New Sciences.

History will be enriched or changed as new evidence emerges that would correct facts about the past which could have been misrepresented or misunderstood due to lack of evidence, be it documentary, archaeological or scientific.

If investigations reveal new evidence on a subject, then historians must accept it even if it demolishes previously accepted “facts” or historical myths.

Sadly, though, many are reluctant to accept newly-discovered facts, fearing that their belief in the accepted concepts or even in their heroes would be shattered.

This is perhaps what was in Spanish philosopher Jorge Santayana’s mind when he said: “History is a pack of lies about events that never happened told by people who weren’t there.”

History, however, is a complex but important discipline. It’s like a piece of puzzle that, when sufficient pieces are placed together, provides a picture of the truth of our past. True history promotes better social relations.

In deciding whether Kathigasu should be in our history books, we cannot slice that part of history and examine it based on the criteria that we now impose. It would be out of context.

She did not seek to become a hero. Hers was the time of the ruthless Kempeitai, the military police arm of the imperial Japanese. While some, out of fear for their lives, became agents of the Kempeitai, Kathigasu chose to resist them. She helped the guerillas and rebel soldiers in their fight to rid Malaya of the Japanese army by providing medical service and vital information. She did this to free the people of Malaya from imperial oppression.

She showed that for a human being, love and service are important. Her service had the characteristics of compassion and willingness to sacrifice. It was a selfless service. She was tortured even to the extent that she may have died or get her child killed. Her act of service is not to be judged on her prominence or on other criteria.

Her service may have been limited to helping the injured soldiers but the need of the recipient at that ruthless period and the mood of the person who offered help decide whether the act makes her worthy of being recognised or not.

Lastly, when she was tortured, she did not shout “Rule Britannia” but “Long live Malaya!”

I fully support the proposal for Kathigasu to be included in our history books. ARIFF SHAH R. K. George Town