by Lim Shu Hui

Dear Producer,

The title of my proposed documentary is History: Singapo[RE]education. I would like to explain my title using my personal experience and knowledge of Singapore history syllabus. As a student of Singapore history, I have been exposed to a considerable variety of literature and other media forms about the said topic.

For instance, I have read texts such as Understanding our Past in secondary school and am also currently taking a Singapore Studies module “Evolution of a Global City-state” in the National University of Singapore. The latter has not only allowed me to delve deeper into Singapore’s history but more importantly, gained new insights about various interpretations of history. These new insights have smashed many of my pre-conceptions formulated in secondary school. Indeed, the histories learnt in secondary school and NUS are so varied that the latter has quite literally given me a re-education.

One of the most fundamental and noble purposes of history is to educate. Well, History: Singapo[RE]education aims to provide fresh perspectives to this education. My proposal seeks to raise awareness of the different angles of approaching the study of Singapore history.

The main ‘cast’ will not be the conventional historians, national heroes or ‘heroes-in-waiting’ – i.e. Lee Kuan Yew.[i]Instead, it will be two groups of ordinary students. One group comprises of lower secondary school students embarking on their first Singapore history lessons; while the other group comprises of university students taking “Evolution of a Global City-State”. The demographics within each group will be varied according to ethnicity – i.e. Chinese-Malay-Indian-Others, religion and historically-relevant nationalities – for instance, Malaysians.

There will be no computer-generated simulation of history or any third-party ‘story-telling’. The documentary will simply trace the students’ learning journeys while intermittently interviewing them about their thoughts. This not only educates the viewer about our history through perspective of the Singapore education system, but also demonstrates the dichotomy between what is learnt at secondary school – a more pro-government and mainstream (thus slightly one-sided and simplified) history – and at the university level – potentially more multi-disciplinary, radical histories – and not just one single ‘history’.

Moreover, the varied demographics in each group will provide rich diverse perspectives for debate and discussion. At the end of their respective courses, both groups will meet to exchange ideas and together (re)write their version of Singapore history.

Why “re-education”? There are issues in the history I learned in secondary school. That syllabus is generally presented in three phases – Raffles’ founding of Singapore in 1819 up to 1942; 1942 to 1965 as the nation’s awakening and march towards self-determination; and the post-1965 phase of the nation-state and nation-building.[ii]

The depiction is chronologically and milestone-based. Comparison of both groups’ experiences will show the viewer the limitations of these approaches – for instance, objectivity is contentious when we question who defines the milestones to be included or excluded. It will also discuss the relevance of pre-1819 “antiquarian” history in the education, which is studied in more detail at university level.[iii]

With that, it will be opportune to recognize the issue of Singapore’s roots – are they of colonial or Asian origins? While the secondary school syllabus states that Raffles is the founder of Singapore, the viewer will be able to discern the ambiguity of the issue upon comparison with the university students’ experiences. The viewer will also discover the complexity behind the choice of Raffles as founder – and not Sri Tri Buana or Parmeswara – and thus will become more aware about the malleability of history education.

The audience will then be referred to the examination of the portrayal of historical figures – i.e. whether Raffles is truly a hero or is excessively eulogized. As the students progress in their lessons chronologically, viewers will witness how depictions of national icons can be one-sided. The undergraduates assess the selection process and credibility of national icons, and also compare “mainstream icons” and “sidelined or uncelebrated icons” – e.g. Lim Chin Siong.

In any typical story, “villains” are the usual complementary feature, and a comparison of the two groups’ syllabuses will showcase the contestability of the selected villains and heroes. An example will be Lim Yew Hock’s government against alleged communists residing in Nanyang University.[iv]This will raise the viewer’s awareness about the tendency of historiography to typecast and demarcate.

The documentary proceeds to contrast the contributions of the ‘icons’ and the common people – i.e. the country traders in colonial times, the marginalized and uncelebrated personalities – to nation-building, as well as the amount of attention given to both groups by academics. Hence, the common people have the rare honour of sharing the limelight, and the limitations of historiography are highlighted once again.

At the end of the documentary, viewers can perhaps appreciate better Levi-Strauss: “History is never only a history of; it is always a history for.”[v] The students’ eventual write-up of history will reflect a younger, more educated, and more common outlook of history; and with greater consideration of the views of different races and nationalities. The purpose of the students’ evolving learning journeys is to mirror the learning experience of the audience.

The documentary does not provide an all-encompassing overview of Singapore history, as it aims to only address the historiographical variations. It attempts to give a voice to marginalized versions of history. My proposed documentary aims not to provide answers nor to intentionally take sides, but to enlighten viewers of the fluid nature of history.

The subjective opinions of the involved students and the production of the documentary will definitely contribute to an inevitably partisan stance to a certain degree. But by providing both the mainstream and alternative perspective, viewers will be allowed room to interpret Singapore’s history for themselves. Hence, and in the name of education, History: Singapo[RE]education hopes to bring a fairer Singapore history to the public.

Yours sincerely,

Lim Shu Hui

The author is a second-year undergraduate majoring in Sociology and Communications & New Media at the National University of Singapore.

[i] Hong Lysa and Huang Jianli, “The Scripting of Singapore’s National Heroes: Toying with Pandora’s Box”, in New Terrains in Southeast Asian History, edited by Abu Talib Ahmad and Tan Lick Ee (Singapore: Singapore University Press. 2005), p. 223.

[ii] Derek Heng Thiam Soon, New Perspectives and Sources on the History of Singapore: a multi-disciplinary approach (Singapore: National Library Board, c2006), p. 15.

[iii] Kwa Chong Guan “From Temasek to Singapore: Locating A Global City-state in the Cycles of Melaka Straits History”, in Early Singapore 1300s-1819: evidence in maps, text and artifacts, edited by John N. Miksic, Cheryl-Ann Low Mei Gek. (Singapore: Singapore Museum, c2004), p. 124.

[iv] Hong and Huang, “The Scripting of Singapore’s National Heroes: Toying with Pandora’s Box”, pp. 232 to 239

[v] Beverley Southgate, History, what and why?: ancient, modern, and postmodern perspectives, (London; New York: Routledge, 1996), p. 48.

Tags: singapore history, singapore history education, Singapore Story

This entry was posted on Tuesday, January 1st, 2008 at 1:29 pm and is filed under Impressions | Conversations. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.