Volume 5, Issue 1, Sep 2013 | 41

Curating NationBaey Xiang Ling

This paper investigates the presentation of Singapore’s national narrative at the National Museum of Singapore (NMS).

�������� ��� ���������� �� ��ƪ������� ��� �������ǡ� ����might better conceive of museums as providing a performance of reality. To take the metaphor further, this paper deconstructs that the national narrative through the analogy of a performance: The sets provide visitors with everyday experiences, the characters narrate a sanitised version of history, and the plot gives viewers a false sense of autonomy. Finally, the paper concludes by relating the national narrative in NMS to the larger context of history-making in Singapore.

As an avid fan of museums, I enjoy visiting these institutions both locally and abroad. While walking through the Singapore History Gallery (SHG), one of the permanent exhibitions at the National Museum of Singapore (NMS), I came across a scene that puzzled me. Initially, the wall lining the Arriving zone of the display depicted a scene of the sky (Fig. 1). As I walked further, however, the panels comprising this wall started to open up, revealing a second wall that had been concealed behind the first. The rationale behind a double-layered backdrop was not immediately clear to me. Perhaps, this peeling away was a symbolic reference to the multi-layered history that I was about to witness. The next image that I came across puzzled me yet again. On the second wall, a frame was placed, bringing my attention to the ships sailing on the misty seas (Fig. 2). The placement of this frame appeared utterly arbitrary to me at first. As I had grown used to the notion that frames outlined significant items, such as paintings or treasured photographs, I did not stop to think about the scene that existed beyond the frame. Yet, it was quite plausible to think that there would be events, people, and knowledge excluded by literal or metaphorical ‘frames’ that I was ignorant about. These sentiments prompted me to take a critical look at the manner in which the Singapore History Gallery has been constructed.

Theoretical FrameworkIn this paper, national museums will be defined as

“institutions of national collection and display, which claim and are being recognised as being national”.1 These institutions are significant for two main reasons. The first relates to the content displayed within the national museums — a country’s national narrative plays out within these walls, defining what a nation was, is and ought to be about.2 The second relates to the mindset of the visitors who visit the museum. A museum’s authority rests on its ability to promote a particular and persuasive representation of the world. Thus, for a museum to be effective, we must ‘buy into’ its offerings. Based on a moral positioning that is manufactured through acts of professionalisation, the public is induced to believe that museums are a neutral and trustworthy authority on how the world ought to be understood.3 Such beliefs allow museums to act as uniquely powerful epistemological instruments for the creation, maintenance, and dissemination of meaning.4

At this point, however, one should note that museums are not as objective a space as visitors might imagine them to be. To quote anthropologist Laura Jane Smith, “Heritage is heritage because it is subjected to management and preservation/conservation processes, not because it simply ‘is’.”5 Here, it is essential to avoid the notion of ‘ghost-catching’, or the presupposition that ‘national narratives’ have an existence independent of the institutions and occasions in which they are staged.6 Instead of providing a reflection of reality, one might better conceive of museums as providing a performance of reality.7 To extend the metaphor of performance further, one could think of national museums as the stage on which the nation is performed, with roles played by sets, scripts, and actors.8 This is the approach that I will adopt in this paper to better understand the exhibition display in the SHG. I will argue that the SHG can be understood through the analogy of a performance—history is not simply Figure 1. Wall lining the Arriving Zone of the SHG

Figure 2. Frame hanging at the Arriving zone

42 | PRISM: USP Undergraduate Journal

presented in the SHG; it is performed. In this paper, I support this claim by deconstructing the SHG along these three dimensions: the sets, the characters, and finally, the plot.9 The set provides visitors with everyday experiences of Singapore’s past, the characters narrate a relatively sanitised version of Singapore’s history, and the plot leaves its viewers with a false sense of autonomy. Deconstructing the curatorial arrangement as such would then allow one to become more sensitive to the framing that the museum employs. While such a view admittedly seems cynical of museum representations as overtly theatrical or artificial, one should not be quick to denounce national myths as utter falsehoods. Facts, not fictions, are used as an artistic medium to produce a particular imagining of the nation.10 While other versions are possible, these alternatives simply point to the nation (as performed in national museums) as a partial truth, but a truth no less. A more comprehensive approach, which I aspire towards in this paper, would be to articulate how the national narrative and the institutions are in fact two co-constructed and co-evolving facets that feed into each other.11

It may be useful here to note that I restrict my inquiry to the production aspect of the NMS and not so much how the exhibition has been received by its visitors. Within a single museum, the staff may have differing attitudes and orientations; moreover, because they are organisations comprising diverse personnel with different interests, museums may have difficulty developing an internal consensus.12 However, an analysis of the contestation of power within the institution lies outside the scope of this paper. I recognise that these are equally valid angles to explore how national narratives are constructed within museums. My goal however, is primarily to examine the poetics of the display in SHG and from there, to explore the politics of interpretation, to derive the “why” from the “how”.

Background of the National Museum of Singapore

The NMS is the city-state’s oldest museum.13 One may trace the origins of the institution to the opening of the Raffles Library and Museum in 1887, which served as a repository of artefacts related to the flora, fauna, and peoples of the region.14 Attempts to archive Singapore’s social and cultural history in the form of a specifically designated collection began by 1918.15 Later in 1969, the museum became the National Museum and in 1972, as the central repository of the new nation’s heritage, took on an official nation-building role.16 From 2003 to 2006, the institution underwent massive renovation and expansion efforts, costing a total of S$132 million.17 The original late-Victorian architecture of the NMS was designed by English engineer Henry McCallum while serving in

Singapore; meshed with steel and glass, the museum sported additional materials that were symbolic of modernity.18 Through its distinctive architecture, this new NMS aspired to move beyond its role as a museum to represent Singapore’s “harmonious juxtaposition of old and new, Western and Asian.”19

The NMS has changed its location, content, and even its name over the years. As of now, the refurbished institution takes on the mantle of a history museum and aims to engage the public in an exploration of the history that has made Singapore and her people who they are today.20 The permanent exhibitions in the NMS include the Singapore History Gallery (SHG) and four Singapore Living Galleries. The Living Galleries depict Singapore’s history through four broadly accessible themes, which the spaces are also named after: Food, Film and Wayang, Fashion, and Photography.21 The former three galleries place a particular focus on the years of 1950s to the 1970s, whereas the Photography gallery includes material dating back to pre-independent Singapore.22 In comparison, the SHG charts about 700 years of Singapore’s history, from the late thirteenth century establishment of Temasek to recent statehood.23 As the SHG is the only exhibition that offers an overarching narrative of Singapore’s history, I will restrict the scope of my inquiry to the SHG, rather than the Living Galleries.

How the National Narrative is Told in the Singapore History Gallery

Unlike other exhibition spaces in the NMS, visitors to the SHG are strongly encouraged to make use of the companion audio-guide supplied at the gallery entrance.24 Whereas conventional history galleries display information by default using explanatory labels, viewers walking through the SHG have to actively request for the bulk of their information through their audio-guides.25 Visitors pass through eight distinct zones in their journey through the SHG, namely: Arriving, Settlement, Emporium, Port-city, Modern Times, Fortress and Syonan-To, Merdeka and New Nation. These zones take the visitor from the landing of Sir Stamford Raffles in Singapore in 1819 and the island’s subsequent colonial settlement by the British to the city-state’s World War II experiences and her struggle for self-governance, ending with the triumphs and economic development of post-independence Singapore.26

Sets: A Focus on Everyday ExperiencesIn a performance, sets refer to the backdrops and

props that are used to create scenery appropriate to the era or location depicted. In a museum setting, sets might refer to details such as lighting, background music, furniture, and even the flooring used as part of

Volume 5, Issue 1, Sep 2013 | 43

the exhibition display. In this segment, I first outline the concepts of connectivity and resonance. Here, I separate connectivity from resonance as the former relates to style (how the sets are constructed), whereas the latter involves the content (what the sets are constructed out of ). This section will then argue that the sets employed in the SHG have been deliberately constructed to achieve connectivity and resonance with its viewers. Finally, this section will conclude with an explanation of why this is done.

Connectivity

One of the stated goals of the NMS is for viewers to leave their exhibitions “not only with knowledge, but quite uniquely, with a sense of having experienced that history’s texture and meaning”.27 The key word here is experience; I suggest that the rationale behind this experiential approach is to make visitors feel like they are walking through a story.28 This experiential approach manifests itself in two ways: the first involves placing a heavy emphasis on ambience; the second involves a conscious effort to disguise physical barriers.

Firstly, the exhibition in the SHG could be described as placing a heavy emphasis on ambience by noting that a fair number of objects in the gallery are not there as artefacts for conservation; rather, they are there as props, used for the purpose of illustrating the national narrative. For example, at one point of the Personal Path route, there are dozens of rattan baskets hanging from the ceiling, while shelves on the left feature crockery typical of the 1960s and 1970s. In the recreated courtyard of Thian Hock Keng temple (set in the Emporium zone of the Events Path), visitors are invited to sit on blue and white porcelain stools and admire a ceiling lined with Chinese lanterns while listening to the story of the philanthropist Tan Tock Seng. Yet, these baskets, crockery, chairs, and lanterns serve simply as adornments as there are no numbered label stickers near them. These props help to re-create a world of the past, whereas an exhibition full of glass cases or ‘Do not touch’ signs might firmly remind visitors that they are in the present, looking retrospectively at the past. The function of these elaborate props is to engage visitors with the history presented within these walls, facilitating connectivity in a way that artefacts alone cannot.

Secondly, there has also been a conscious effort to disguise physical barriers such as glass cases by integrating them into pieces of furniture. For example, the room featuring William Read, a British politician serving in Singapore, displays newspaper clippings embedded within a table top. In the room featuring Eunos Abdullah, a prominent Malay leader in the 1920s, a Malay school reader lies embedded in a wooden desk. Finally, in a room titled ‘Rene Onraet and the Special Branch’, Kuomintang badges are featured in a style similar to the first two examples.

As previously articulated, physical barriers, such as glass cases or ‘Do not touch’ signs, serve as reminders that visitors are seeing the past in retrospect. By physically discouraging viewers from interacting with the artefacts displayed, these barriers also limit the extent of visitors’ emotional connection with the artefacts; hence, they may be seen as creating accompanying emotional barriers between viewer and display. Given that the stated aim of NMS is for visitors to experience history, there is thus a need to reduce the visibility of such signposts as much as possible. The integration of physical barriers into pieces of furniture helps such barriers to blend into the film-like sets of the SHG, in turn creating a sense of intimacy between visitor, story, and space.29

Resonance

Resonance is one possible mode of experience that visitors undergo when visiting museum exhibitions, where objects displayed evoke powerful recollections or a sense of familiarity with the viewers.30 The visitor’s experience in the SHG is constructed to resonate with its audience, and this is achieved via the display of everyday objects throughout the SHG (i.e., these objects can reasonably be found in most homes in Singapore today). Along the Personal Path for example, vintage beauty-related items are displayed in a glass cabinet located in the Modern Times zone; these include a comb, a mirror, a powder box, and vanity boxes typically used to store cosmetics or jewellery. Later on, in the Merdeka zone, a tin of Khong Guan biscuits and a Rediffusion cable radio set is showcased. Finally, the New Nation zone features a series of vintage televisions, a telephone, an iron, a kettle, a blender, and even a lunchbox.

The commonplace nature of the objects listed earlier is crucial; from eating biscuits out of metal tins to watching the television, the ubiquity of such experiences allows nearly every Singaporean to relate to the objects displayed within the SHG, regardless of their racial, religious, or socio-economic background. For those who lived through the era in which these

Figure 3. In William Read’s room, one can find a table top with newspaper clippings embedded within. Read’s room is located in the Emporium zone of the

Events Path.

44 | PRISM: USP Undergraduate Journal

artefacts were produced and consumed, contact with such objects can evoke powerful recollections of their own personal memories.31 For those who were born after this period, these artefacts help to illustrate what life was like in Singapore’s recent past.32 A sense of resonance is also evoked as the modern counterparts to these artefacts (such as the comb or kettle for example) may be found in the intimate setting of visitors’ very own homes. Some visitors may even use the newer version of these objects on a day-to-day basis, thus enabling them to connect with the artefacts easily.

There may be multiple intentions behind evoking resonance and connectivity in the SHG, but I will focus upon one in particular. Recalling the nation-building role of the NMS, it is not surprising that the national narrative is constructed in a manner that connects, resonates, and hence relates to the people. Preserving the memory of the common folk is one way the state could reinforce its legitimacy, rather than merely pursuing the more obvious and rational route of managing an effective economy or providing welfare benefits.33 An appeal to the emotions is made when the state takes care to place the memories of the masses, rather than just those of the social and political elite, at the heart of the national narrative. In so doing, the state could be quietly pursuing political patronage by framing the people as its priority, implicitly suggesting that the people have much to gain by their continual support of the state.34

Characters: Narration of a Relatively Sanitised Version of Singapore’s History

A multitude of characters are featured in the SHG, including Europeans such as Sir Stamford Raffles, Australian missionary Sophia Blackmore, Chinese merchants such as Seah Eu Chin, Japanese prostitutes, Indian trade union leaders as well as Sultan Hussein, the seventeenth Sultan of Johor who allowed a British settlement in Singapore. Through the visitor’s audio-guide, these characters come alive: they narrate their own life stories complete with appropriate accents. This extensive list of cast members then provides the exhibition with an illusion of multi-vocality. Given that many different voices speak through the audio-

guide, one might conclude that the visitor is being presented with a vernacular version of the past, rather than an official version.35 However, I argue otherwise in this section.

If the viewer were truly presented with a vernacular version of history, one might reasonably expect to find history presented from “multiple angles”36 and that there would be “different and opposing viewpoints,”37 which might even be “anti-establishment”38 in nature in the SHG. I will illustrate how certain issues, which may be considered controversial or disgraceful, are in fact embedded in an already sanitised version of history. Through these examples, I make the case that multi-vocality in the SHG is but an illusion. Though various voice actors may be involved in the production of the narrative, there is ultimately only one author behind the script—the state – that decides exactly who gets to say what, when, how and why. Notably, there is nothing in the SHG that challenges the state’s legitimacy in any way. Two examples support this claim.

The first example concerns the conflicting British and Dutch claim over Singapore in the period following Raffles’ landing.39 Visitors witness this controversy via an audio presentation inspired by the actual exchange of letters from Raffles and the Dutch Governor-General of Java, Baron Capellan, to their respective governments in London and The Hague.40 This example provides a rare, if not the only, two-sided account of history in the SHG by conveniently pitting one colonial power against another. Why does a two-sided approach to history take place here and not elsewhere? One could envision a two-sided version of history in other contexts as well. The communist threat was considered most prevalent in Singapore during the 1960s and 1970s, for example, and it is plausible that this period of Singapore’s history might look different from a communist’s point of view. Yet, the presence of communists in Singapore is only briefly mentioned in the Merdeka zone, with little or none of its content challenging the official state discourse that associated communists with riots, strikes, and terrorism.41 Given the selective nature in which a two-sided approach to history is employed, serious questions regarding the NMS’s claim that “anti-establishment” viewpoints can be found in the SHG should in turn be raised.42 The second example relates to a space titled ‘Chasing the Dragon’ by the audio-guide. In a mock opium den, visitors explore the plight of Chinese coolies who frequented such dens. A printed text panel hanging on the wall declares that “Here they forget”, suggesting that such narcotic indulgence was but an attempt to escape the harsh realities of their lives as manual labourers.43 In the SHG’s representation of social history, these migrant workers suffered under the charge of the British colonial powers, and the blame for such disgraceful social ills may be attributed to the inadequate governing abilities of the British. In stark

Figure 4. Household appliances found in the New Nation zone.

Volume 5, Issue 1, Sep 2013 | 45

contrast, the later glory and success of Singapore, illustrated in the New Nation zone of the SHG, is credited to the wise governance of the ruling People’s Action Party (PAP). In citing and elaborating upon these two examples, I argue that these controversial or disgraceful issues merely pay lip service to the idea that alternatives to a state-sanctioned version of history exist in the SHG.

The only issue that could qualify as being politically sensitive in the SHG is a tribute video to Lim Chin Siong, discussing his role in the Barisan Sosialis, the main opposition to the PAP during the 1960s. This video installation is placed in a room titled ‘Union Lives’ in the New Nation zone.44 I suggest that the reason why there is only one politically controversial topic throughout the entire SHG is that the Barisan Sosialis episode is meant to be taken as a token challenge to the state’s legitimacy. It would otherwise be too obviously one-sided to have zero anti-establishment sentiments in the SHG. One should also note that even this slight concession of state legitimacy takes place with very specific perimeters. Even as Lim was praised by key political figures such as Lee Kuan Yew, the first Prime Minister of Singapore, his status as a communist was never questioned in the video. Lim was imprisoned and later exiled from Singapore based on communist charges.45 Declassified British texts however, have noted that Lim was not a communist and that there was no evidence to establish him as one.46

Other anti-establishment historical facts, with more relevant and contemporary implications, are noticeably absent. David Marshall, the first Chief Minister in Singapore’s political history, is featured in the room titled ‘Chief Ministers’ in the Merdeka zone. However, that the currently popular Central Provident Fund system traces its roots back to his administration is not mentioned within the exhibition. The politically inconvenient fact, that one of the central thrusts of the PAP’s manifesto in 1959 was a commitment to abolishing such a scheme, was also omitted from the SHG.47

Why then, is there a sanitised version of Singapore’s history in the SHG? This may be because political regimes are typically concerned with the control of collective memory; heritage is not simply about the past, but simultaneously about the present and the future.48 Ideologically-charged histories, for example, may be deliberately forgotten so as to manage political tensions in the present. The NMS, to a certain extent, performs the role of a bridging institution by permitting a willing historical amnesia here.49 The national narrative in the SHG thus comes to promote a certain version of history, which is crafted by the state-sanctioned cultural institution (the NMS in this case), as a suggested way for its visitors to see the world.50

Plot: A False Sense of AutonomyIn a performance, the plot would refer to the

arrangement of ideas or incidents that make up a story. Its counterpart in a museum could be the spatial layout of a particular exhibition; this determines the route in which visitors take, and may emphasise certain ideas or withhold a significant sight until the optimum moment.51 A linear route gives the curators maximum control over what the visitors see, whereas exhibitions that are multi-routed or random eschew a single prescriptive narrative.52

In its guidebook, the NMS claims that “nuance rather than mono-track orthodoxy is manifest throughout the History Gallery.”53 The guidebook supports this claim by citing how visitors to the SHG are free to choose between two different ways of approaching Singapore’s history as they move into the colonial era. Visitors can go either onto the Events Path or onto the Personal Path. The Events Path provides a more conventional focus to Singapore’s history, exploring major headline events of each era.54 In comparison, the Personal Path features people, who according to the audio-guide’s narration “don’t usually make it to history books.” The audio-guide then provides further instructions: visitors need not follow the same path throughout the gallery; there are rest areas in which one could switch over. In encouraging the visitor to take a proactive role in choosing which path to explore, the NMS hopes to take the visitor “into the very heart of unfolding events rather than affording him the limited view of a passive, sideline observer.”55

Here, I will argue that this sense of autonomy, granted to visitors by the curators of the museum, is in fact false. Even though visitors get to choose between the Events Path and Personal Path three times along their journey through the gallery, the idea of choice here is but illusory. One could argue that a choice between the two paths in the SHG, was not given, but rather imposed on the visitor. Upon entering the Emporium zone, the audio-guide subtly reminds the visitor of his limited autonomy when it asserts that, “here, you have to make a choice.” Decisions as to exactly when, where, and how the visitor may choose between the two paths were made even before any visitor stepped into the museum exhibit. The NMS has in some sense, already pre-selected all the options available within the SHG. As viewers, our autonomy is hence limited to choosing between the options that have already been pre-selected for them. Arguably, true autonomy comes only when the visitors or viewers play a role in deciding which options should be made available.

Although the space where one could switch over from one path to the other are explained simply as “rest areas” by the audio-guide, I propose in this paper that

46 | PRISM: USP Undergraduate Journal

these areas are highly significant as they bring the two paths together. No matter which path a visitor chooses, one has to pass through these points of convergence. Convergences could thus be read as a well-disguised ‘compulsory’ component to the national narrative as told within the SHG.

Compulsory Checkpoints

For example, one point of convergence takes place at the end of the Modern Times zone. Here, both the Events Path and the Personal Path lead into a room that introduces the Japanese Occupation, which is effectively the start of the Fortress zone. Renan’s essay “What is a Nation?” helps to explain the significance of using the Japanese Occupation as a point of convergence within the NMS. On the first level, Renan argues that shared experiences are crucial to the formation of a nation as “a heroic past of great men, of glory…it is the social capital on which a national idea is established.”56 On the second level, Renan argues that collective trauma, more so than collective triumph, is crucial to the formation of the nation. According to Renan, “suffering in common unites more than joy. In matters of national history, mourning has more validity than triumph, since it imposes duties which demand a common effort.”57 When all visitors receive a common orientation about the Japanese Occupation, the Japanese Occupation experience is in effect being used as a shared memory to unite the people of Singapore. The horrors of WWII are alluded to by a wall lined with bicycle frames in this very same room; these bicycle frames provides a haunting reference to how Japanese soldiers cycled across the Johor Strait into Singapore.

A Narrative of Progress

Due to a relatively linear national narrative, the overarching narrative of progress is also one that visitors inevitably experience, regardless of which of the two paths they end up choosing. As both the Events and the Personal Path start and end at the same place, namely the Emporium zone and the New Nation zone respectively, the structure of the national narrative is relatively linear. To have only one linear path throughout the SHG would reflect “mono-track orthodoxy”, a reputation that the NMS is keen to avoid.58 Hence, the creation of two paths may be seen as a compromise, allowing the NMS to avoid being overly prescriptive while more or less still retaining a sense of linearity. This sense of linearity then reinforces the content of the national narrative, that Singapore has enjoyed growth throughout its existence. Should the SHG have employed a maze or grid-like layout instead, this might suggest that the country has at times advanced and at other times, backtracked, in terms of its progress. The sense that one is moving clearly from point A to point B to point C would be weakened.

What, then, is the purpose of making the overall narrative of progress compulsory? One possible interpretation is that a narrative of progress, rather than one of success, may remind visitors that Singapore’s prosperity did not come easily. As mentioned during a recent speech by Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong, it is important for Singaporeans to remember that “it was not by luck or mere passage of time that this (success) happened.”59 Possibly, knowledge about Singapore’s struggles is important because this frames the government of Singapore, the PAP, as the benefactors and engineers of Singapore’s present-day success. Implicit in such a narrative is the claim that the state has been benevolent to its people in the past, giving it greater credibility in making decisions about Singapore’s future.

ConclusionIn this paper, I have sought to critically examine the

national narrative in the SHG through the analogy of a performance, using concepts such as sets, characters, and plot to aid its analysis. Recalling my earlier experience with the double-layered backdrop, I have attempted to demonstrate that there are many layers to understanding Singapore’s history. The NMS comes closest to being an equivalent of a people’s museum in Singapore.60 Yet the institution has been created for the masses, not by the masses. The sets, crafted to provide an everyday experience for the audience, then allow the former to masquerade as the latter. Even though the NMS introduces a multitude of characters to its visitors in the SHG, multi-vocality is but a façade. As I have argued, there is only one voice—that of the state-scriptwriter. Similarly, the NMS appears to give its visitors autonomy in choosing their preferred route. However, in this paper, I have identified compulsory checkpoints and an overarching narrative of progress, both of which visitors inevitably experienced regardless of the route they eventually picked. What, then, is the significance of such an analysis?

In my view, the key issue here is that the state-endorsed narrative is constantly conceived of in a singular form, despite claims to the contrary.61 Politicians, typically from the PAP, use the affectionate term of a “Singapore Story” to refer to the city-state’s past.62 This tale often bears the following traits: Singaporeans are portrayed as a determined, industrious and self-sacrificing people, led to prosperity by a far-sighted and incorrupt government—the PAP—since the country’s independence; the current state of harmonious multi-culturalism and economic progress are rewards of obeying the paternal, benevolent state. Notably, the national narrative performed in the SHG does not deviate from this particular conception of Singapore’s history. To be more precise, the SHG is not so much a performance in and of itself. Rather, the SHG and the NMS could be seen as an essential state-

Volume 5, Issue 1, Sep 2013 | 47

authorised and authored chapter in the performance of national memory and nationhood. Yet, having only a particular conception of Singapore’s history in the public arena is inherently problematic; the past is often better understood from a multitude of viewpoints and perspectives. There is thus a need for Singapore stories, histories of Singapore that are different or might even run counter to the ‘Singapore Story’, also to be included in our conception of Singapore’s past.

This need is particularly relevant for the generation who was born after Singapore achieved its first-world status, as the “Singapore Story” may appear to be out-dated in its appeal.64 Given a backdrop of the present state of PAP hegemony, the “Singapore Story” could also be easily dismissed as a piece of state propaganda.65 These two reasons might then lead to an acceptance of anti-PAP accounts of history as the gospel truth, a situation that is again undesirable in its historical inaccuracy. Both the “Singapore Story” and its competing interpretations are tangled narratives; the solution does not lie in switching one partisan view of history for another.66 The way forward, I propose, is to dismantle the frame that the government has constructed around Singapore’s history, such that a more nuanced understanding of the island-state’s many histories can finally take place.67

48 | PRISM: USP Undergraduate Journal

Bibliography

Chung, May Khuen et al. Vintage Singapore: Souvenirs from the recent past. Singapore: Editions Didier Millet, 2006.

Corsane, Gerard, ed. Heritage, Museums and Galleries: An introductory reader. London and New York: Routledge, 2005.

Harper, Tim. “Lim Chin Siong and the ‘Singapore Story’.” In Comet in our sky: Lim Chin Siong in history, edited by Tan Jing Quee and Jomo Kwame Sundaram. Kuala Lumpur: INSAN, 2001.

Holden, Philip. (15 Aug 2011), “The Power of Stories,” accessed October 20, 2011, http://www.todayonline.com/ Singapore/ EDC110815-0000728/The-power-of-stories.

Internal Security Department (2003). “Countering threats.” Accessed October 20, 2011. http://www.mha.gov.sg/is dct.htm.

Karp, Ivan. “Culture and Representation.” In Exhibiting Cultures: The Poetics and Politics of Museum Display, ed. Ivan Karp and Steven Lavine, 11-24. Washington: Smithsonian Institution Press, 1991.

Knell, Simon et al., eds. National Museums: New Studies from Around the World. London and New York: Routledge, 2011.

Lenzi, Iola, ed. National Museum of Singapore Guide. Singapore: Editions Didier Millet and National Museum of Singapore, 2007.

Loh, Kah Seng (2010). “The Making of History: Gatekeepers, Researchers and Singapore Stories.” Accessed October 29, 2011. http://portal.hss.ntu.edu.sg/macc/info/Loh%20The%20Making%20 of%20History.pdf.

Macdonald, Sharon, ed. A Companion to Museum Studies. Massachusetts: Blackwell Publishing, 2006.

National Museum of Singapore. “About us: About the National Museum of Singapore.” Accessed November 12, 2011. http://www.nationalmuseum.sg/page.aspx?id= 2.

Prime Minister’s Office. “Speech by the Prime Minister at the Debate on The Presidential Address” (October 20, 2011). Accessed October 28, 2011. http://www.pmo.gov.sg/content/pmosite/mediacentre/speechesninterviews /primeminister/2011/October/Speech_by_Prime_Minister_Lee_Hsien_Loong_at_the_Debate_on_The_President_Address.html.

Renan, Ernest. “What is a nation?” In Nationalism in Europe, 1815 to the Present: A Reader, edited by Stuart Woolf. London and New York: Routledge, 1996.

Smith, Laurajane. Uses of heritage. London and New York: Routledge, 2006.

Tan, Kenneth Paul. “Singapore’s National Day Rally speech: A site of ideological negotiation.” Journal of Contemporary Asia, 37:3 (2007), 292-308.

Waltz, Julia. “Under Construction: National identity and the display of colonial history at the National

Museum of Singapore and the Museum of New Zealand Te Papa Tongarewa.” Unpublished Masters dissertation, Victoria University of Wellington, New Zealand, 2008.

Yeo, Lay Hwee (9 Sep 2010). “The Singapore Story | Singapore Institute of International Affairs.” Accessed October 29, 2011. http://www.siiaonline.org/?q=programmes/commentary/the-singapore-story.

Notes1. Peter Aronsson, “Explaining National Museums:

Exploring Comparative Approaches to the Study of National Museums,” in National Museums: New Studies from Around the World, ed. Simon Knell, et al. (London and New York: Routledge, 2011), 31.

2. Ibid., 48.3. Simon Knell, “National Museums and the

National Imagination,” in National Museums: New Studies from Around the World, ed. Simon Knell, et al. (London and New York: Routledge, 2011), 4.

4. Donald Preziosi, “Myths of Nationality,” in National Museums: New Studies from Around the World, ed. Simon Knell, et al. (London and New York: Routledge, 2011), 55.

5. Laurajane Smith, Uses of heritage (London and New York: Routledge, 2006), 3.

6. Preziosi, “Myths of Nationality,” 61.7. Knell, “National Museums and the National

Imagination,” 4. 8. Ibid., 4. 9. This analysis is mainly based on this author’s

observations of the Singapore History Gallery. These observations are the results of four visits to the NMS, which took place from September to November 2011.

10. Knell, “National Museums and the National Imagination,” 7.

11. Preziosi, “Myths of Nationality,” 61. 12. Ivan Karp, “Culture and Representation,” in

Exhibiting Cultures: The Poetics and Politics of Museum Display, ed. Ivan Karp and Steven Lavine (Washington: Smithsonian Institution Press, 1991), 11.

13. Iola Lenzi, ed. National Museum of Singapore Guide (Singapore: Editions Didier Millet and National Museum of Singapore, 2007), 12.

14. Ibid., 12.15. Ibid., 16.16. Ibid., 16.17. Ibid., 17. 18. Ibid., 17.19. Ibid., 17.20. Ibid., 17.21. Ibid., 46.22. Ibid., 46. 23. Ibid., 52.24. Ibid.,52.25. Ibid., 52 .26. Ibid., 62.27. Ibid., 52.

Volume 5, Issue 1, Sep 2013 | 49

28. Ibid., 52. 29. Julia Waltz, “Under Construction: National

identity and the display of colonial history at the National Museum of Singapore and the Museum of New Zealand Te Papa Tongarewa,” (Unpublished Masters dissertation, Victoria University of Wellington, New Zealand, 2008), 32.

30. Karp, “Culture and Representation,” 16.31. Chung May Khuen et al. eds. Vintage Singapore:

Souvenirs from the recent past (Singapore: Editions Didier Millet, 2006), 9.

32. Ibid., 14.33. Aronsson, “Explaining National Museums,”

48. 34. Jeffrey Abt, “The Origins of the Public

Museum,” in A Companion to Museum Studies, ed. Sharon Macdonald (Massachusetts: Blackwell Publishing, 2006), 120.

35. Patricia Davison, “Museums and the re-shaping of memory,” in Heritage, Museums and Galleries: An introductory reader, ed. Gerard Corsane (London and New York: Routledge, 2005), 192.

36. Lenzi, National Museum of Singapore Guide, 17.37. Ibid., 62.38. Ibid., 68.39. Ibid., 62.40. Ibid., 62. 41. Internal Security Department (2003),

“Countering threats,” accessed October 20, 2011, http://www.mha.gov.sg/is dct.htm.

42. Lenzi, National Museum of Singapore Guide, 68.43. Waltz, “Under Construction: National identity

and the display of colonial history,” 34.44. Lenzi, National Museum of Singapore Guide, 68.45. Tim Harper, “Lim Chin Siong and the

‘Singapore Story’,” in Comet in our sky: Lim Chin Siong in history, ed. Tan Jing Quee and Jomo K. S. (Kuala Lumpur: INSAN, 2001), 21.

46. Ibid., 21.47. Philip Holden (15 Aug 2011), “The Power

of Stories,” accessed October 20, 2011, http://www.todayonline.com/ Singapore/ EDC110815-0000728/The-power-of-stories.

48. Smith, Uses of heritage, 4.49. Knell, “National Museums and the National

Imagination,” 14. 50. Rosmarie Beier-de Haan, “Re-staging Histories

and Identities,” in A Companion to Museum Studies, ed. Sharon Macdonald (Massachusetts: Blackwell Publishing, 2006), 194.

51. Rhiannon Mason, “Museums, galleries and heritage: Sites of meaning-making and communication,” in Heritage, Museums and Galleries: An introductory reader, ed. Gerard Corsane (London and New York: Routledge, 2005), 204.

52. Ibid., 204.53. Lenzi, National Museum of Singapore Guide, 68. 54. Ibid., 61.55. Ibid., 61. 56. Ernest Renan, “What is a nation?,” in

Nationalism in Europe, 1815 to the Present: A Reader, ed. Stuart Woolf (London and New York: Routledge, 1996), 58.

57. Ibid., 58.58. Lenzi, National Museum of Singapore Guide, 68. 59. Speech by the Prime Minister at the Debate

on The Presidential Address (October 20, 2011), accessed October 28, 2011, http://www.pmo.gov.sg/content/pmosite/mediacentre/speechesninterviews /primeminister/2011/October/Speech_by_Prime_Minister_Lee_Hsien_Loong_at_the_Debate_on_The_President_Address.html.

60. “About us: About the National Museum of Singapore,” National Museum of Singapore, accessed November 12, 2011, http://www.nationalmuseum.sg/page.aspx?id= 2.

61. Loh, Kah Seng (2010), “The Making of History: Gatekeepers, Researchers and Singapore Stories,” accessed October 29, 2011, http://portal.hss.ntu.edu.sg/macc/info/Loh%20The%20Making%20 of%20History.pdf.

62. Tan, Kenneth Paul, “Singapore’s National Day Rally speech: A site of ideological negotiation,” Journal of Contemporary Asia, 37:3 (2007), 293.

63. Waltz, “Under Construction: National identity and the display of colonial history,” 40.

64. Yeo, Lay Hwee (9 Sep 2010), “The Singapore Story | Singapore Institute of International Affairs,” accessed October 29, 2011, http://www.siiaonline.org/?q=programmes/commentary/the-singapore-story.

65. Loh, “The Making of History”.66. Ibid.67. Ibid.

Baey Xiang Ling is a recently graduated student majoring in (read: married to) Political Science but cannot help her affair with the occasional Philosophy module. She has been an avid fan of museums for as long as she can remember and views museum excursions as a welcome escape from the humdrum of daily life. This paper is written for Dr Patrick Daly as part of an Independent Study Module on the politics of museum display.