2019年5月4日，五四运动一百周年那天，我创立的文图学会在新加坡主办了一场座谈会，题目叫"百年五四新加坡So What"。那个"So What"，说的正是身在南洋的华人长久以来的困惑：发生在遥远北京的那场运动，和我们究竟有什么关系？
同一天，当时担任新加坡总理的李显龙先生在社交媒体发了一段话，提到”今天是五四百年纪念日，这天也因星际大战日（Star Wars
Day）而闻名。“
如此有趣的并置，被学者罗乐然写进了新著《五四在南洋——新马华人的文化记忆与中华想象》的开篇。我读到这里，忍不住会心一笑：这不正是南洋华人处境的缩影吗？一脚踩在中华文化的百年传统里，另一脚站在全球流行文化的当下。
罗博士这本书，是我近年读到的关于五四运动研究最令人耳目一新的著作之一。它不是传统意义上"五四对南洋的影响与回应"的路数，而是追问一个更根本的问题：五四在新加坡与马来西亚是如何被接收、被改造、被遗忘，又被不断重新发明？
这个问题，我自己也思考过。2019年，我写了《百年五四.南洋余波》，后来收录在拙著《星洲创意：文本·传媒·图像新加坡》中，试图梳理这段脉络。但罗博士的研究更为全面，视野也更为开阔。他引入"新南洋研究"的视角，主张摆脱传统的"中国中心论"，认为南洋华人不只是中国文化的被动接受者，而是有自己的主体性，有自己在地的选择与创造。
学术方法上，罗博士借鉴了傅柯"权力的毛细管作用"的概念，让研究从精英叙事走向日常生活：不只看学者、知识分子如何讨论五四，还要看报纸副刊、学校课堂、街头漫画里藏着什么。这种"社会史化"的转向，使读者得以看见五四在新马展现出的多样性与矛盾性，五四运动从来不是整齐单一的"影响"，在无数普通人的日常里，悄悄渗透、悄悄变形。
书中最打动我的，是关于语言的章节。五四白话文运动如何在新马推展，从方言私塾转向国语学校，这不只是教育工具的更替，更是对整整几代人"舌头"与"脑袋"的重塑。这种语言的统一，为后来新马华人身份认同的形成奠定了基石。
关于高等教育的章节同样精彩。南洋大学的创立，带着浓烈的民间热情与民国学术气息；马来亚大学中文系则在殖民政府的框架下，在"汉学传统"与"在地需求"之间艰难平衡。两所大学对五四精神的继承方式各异，却都以不同方式成为五四记忆的载体。这种分析将教育史、政治史与思想史编织在一起，令人信服。
还有一章让我格外欣慰,就是漫画与绘本中的历史记忆。这也是我与罗博士长期共同关注的领域，我们曾经合作编写《四方云集：台·港·中·新的绘本漫画文图学》。透过刘敬贤《陈福财的艺术》等作品，可以看到历史记忆如何在大众文化中被"玩味"与重新诠释。
五四运动百年纪念，新加坡官方将五四与文化传承、建国史相挂钩；马来西亚华社则更多将其与华文教育的焦虑联系在一起。同一场运动，在不同的土地上长出了不同的面貌。这提醒我们：每一次纪念，都是一次重写；每一次重写，都折射着当下的诠释与期望。
李显龙总理说：“不了解过去历史、起源和文化的人民，就像无根之树。”放在《五四在南洋》的语境里，又多了一层意思：根，不一定只有一条；树，也可以在异乡的土壤里，长出属于自己的形状。
2026年4月25日，新加坡《联合早报》“上善若水”专栏
The May Fourth Movement That Went “Down to Nanyang”
I Lo-fen
On May 4, 2019, the centenary of the May Fourth Movement, the Text and
Image Studies Society, which I founded, organized a forum in Singapore titled
“A Century of May Fourth in Singapore: So What?” The phrase “So What” spoke
precisely to a long-standing question among Chinese communities in Nanyang:
What, after all, does a movement that took place in distant Beijing have to do
with us?
On the same day, Mr. Lee Hsien Loong, then Prime Minister of Singapore,
posted a message on social media, noting that “today marks the centenary of May
Fourth, a day also known as Star Wars Day.”
This intriguing juxtaposition appears at the beginning of Dr. Law Lok-yin’s
new book, *May Fourth in Nanyang: The Cultural Memory and Chinese Imagination
of the Chinese Communities in Singapore and Malaysia*. When I read this
passage, I could not help but smile knowingly. Is this not a perfect snapshot
of the situation of Nanyang Chinese? One foot stands in the century-old
tradition of Chinese culture, while the other stands in the present moment of
global popular culture.
Dr. Law’s book is one of the most refreshing studies of the May Fourth
Movement that I have read in recent years. It does not follow the conventional
approach of examining “the influence of May Fourth on Nanyang and its
responses.” Instead, it asks a more fundamental question: how was May Fourth
received, transformed, forgotten, and continuously reinvented in Singapore and
Malaysia?
This is a question I have also reflected on. In 2019, I wrote “A Century
of May Fourth: Ripples in Nanyang,” later included in my book *Creativity in
Singapore: Texts, Media, and Images*, in an attempt to trace this historical
thread. Yet Dr. Law’s research is more comprehensive and broader in vision. He
introduces the perspective of “New Nanyang Studies,” advocating a departure
from the traditional “China-centered” framework. In his view, Nanyang Chinese
were not merely passive recipients of Chinese culture; they possessed their own
agency, as well as their own local choices and forms of creativity.
In terms of academic method, Dr. Law draws on Foucault’s concept of the
“capillary action of power,” shifting the study from elite narratives to
everyday life. He does not only examine how scholars and intellectuals
discussed May Fourth; he also looks at what was hidden in newspaper supplements,
school classrooms, and street cartoons. This turn toward social history allows
readers to see the diversity and contradictions of May Fourth as it unfolded in
Singapore and Malaysia. The May Fourth Movement was never a neat and singular
“influence”; rather, it quietly permeated and transformed itself in the daily
lives of countless ordinary people.
What moved me most in the book is the chapter on language. The promotion
of the May Fourth vernacular language movement in Singapore and Malaysia, and
the transition from dialect-based private schools to Mandarin-medium schools,
was not merely a replacement of educational tools. It was also a reshaping of
the “tongues” and “minds” of several generations. This linguistic unification
laid the foundation for the later formation of Chinese identity in Singapore
and Malaysia.
The chapter on higher education is equally compelling. The founding of
Nanyang University was marked by strong popular enthusiasm and the academic
atmosphere of Republican China. By contrast, the Department of Chinese Studies
at the University of Malaya had to operate within the framework of the colonial
government, struggling to balance the “Sinological tradition” with “local
needs.” The two universities inherited the spirit of May Fourth in different
ways, yet each became, in its own manner, a carrier of May Fourth memory. This
analysis weaves together educational history, political history, and
intellectual history in a convincing way.
Another chapter that gave me particular pleasure is the one on
historical memory in comics and picture books. This is also a field that Dr. Law
and I have long been concerned with. We once co-edited *Converging from All
Directions: Text and Image Studies of Picture Books and Comics in Taiwan, Hong
Kong, Mainland China, and Singapore*. Through works such as Liu Jingxian’s *The
Art of Chen Fu Cai*, one can see how historical memory is “played with” and
reinterpreted in popular culture.
During the centenary commemorations of the May Fourth Movement,
Singapore’s official discourse linked May Fourth with cultural heritage and the
history of nation-building, while the Chinese community in Malaysia more often
associated it with anxieties over Chinese-language education. The same movement
grew into different forms on different lands. This reminds us that every act of
commemoration is an act of rewriting, and every act of rewriting reflects the
interpretations and expectations of the present.
Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong once said, “A people who do not
understand their past history, origins, and culture are like trees without
roots.” Placed in the context of *May Fourth in Nanyang*, this statement gains
another layer of meaning: roots do not necessarily have to be singular; a tree
can also grow its own shape in the soil of a foreign land.
April 25, 2026, “Shang Shan Ruo Shui” column, Lianhe Zaobao,
Singapore.
