The Singapore History Gallery In The National Museum Of Singapore

1845 Words4 Pages

This essay seeks to analyse the strengths and weaknesses of the Singapore History Gallery in the National Museum of Singapore. Analysis in this paper will be done by examining the intersecting of memory, heritage and history in the museum’s representation of Singapore’s past, the relationship established by the museum between Singapore’s past and present, as well as the representational strategy of the museum by which meanings are conveyed. While the Singapore History Gallery does have educational value, and provides a seemingly complete narrative of Singapore’s history from the 1300s to the modern era, the gallery is not without inadequacies. The flaws of this gallery are most glaring in exhibits dealing with Singapore’s post independence history.

Intersecting of memory, heritage and history in the museum’s representation of Singapore’s past.

The Singapore History Gallery, by intersecting memory, heritage and history, tried to provide a clearer picture of Singapore’s history, with an overarching historical narrative.

History, according to John Arnold, “begins with sources” . However, while history starts through the examination of sources, “[historians] need to be aware of the nuances of sources, the gaps between what is said and what is not said; their rhythms and syncopation” . Throughout gallery, it is evident that much emphasis was placed on the historical aspect of Singapore, where artefacts and sources were employed to provide background knowledge of Singapore’s past. Sources included transcripts of Eunos Abdullah trying to fight for the improvement of education of Malay boys in Singapore, to have Malay boys in vernacular schools taught English. The source also showed how British officials, who thought that they did eno...

... middle of paper ...

...exhibits following Singapore’s independence were more geared towards the People’s Action Party’s (PAP) narrative of Singapore’s history, of how Lee Kuan Yew built the nation whose success we enjoy today. There seems to be a deliberate silencing of PAP’s political opponents. The exhibits from the 1960s onwards made no mention of political opponents. The exhibition comes to an abrupt end, where little is mentioned about Singapore’s progress during and beyond the 1970s, and it seems to suggest that Singapore’s history had come to an end with the economic success achieved during the 1970s, with successful nation-building represented by the 9th August video, which commemorates Singapore’s national day. This is the inherent weakness of the exhibition, where it lacks in the provision of the entire picture of Singapore’s history, of Singapore’s struggles post independence.

Open Document