By TAN SAI SIONG
NATIONAL MUSEUM director Lim How Seng thinks it is a shame that when tourists come here and ask "Where can we go and learn about Singapore's history?", there are only two relevant attractions:
- One gallery comprising 20 dioramas covering the period from Raffles' 1819 founding of Singapore as a trading post to the first sitting of Parliament in 1965;
- An exhibition on Singapore's history from 1942 till 1990, called From Colony To Nation, that opened two months ago.
I agree it is a shame. More so when the country has a $130 billion economy but manages to capture so little of its past in its main museum.
The reasons for this are well understood. But there is no need to dwell on them here, as the showcasing of Singapore's history has now entered the same phase as when Prince Charming located the woman who wore the glass slipper.
For Singapore history, for too long a Cinderella, its Prince Charming comes in the form of the exciting programme spelt out by Mr Lim last week.
In an interview with Life!, he promised that when the upgrading of the museum, renamed the Singapore History Museum, and its surroundings is done, there will be eight new galleries. There will also be an extension at Canning Rise.
Visitors can then take an unobstructed walk from the Stamford Road front of the revitalised museum all the way to Fort Canning Park, a historical site of ancient Malay kings.
More space means more room to showcase significant events which shaped Singapore. A major show to be held in July next year as part of the Government's efforts to educate Singaporeans on their history will end up at the SHM as one of its core attractions.
And visitors are promised to be bombarded "with the sights and sounds of the country's history through the use of life-sized and three-dimensional fibre glass figures which, outfitted with speakers and lights, talk and re-enact scenes from the past".
Not all of these plans appear to have been set in concrete yet. Come January, there will be an exhibition to find out what form Singaporeans would like the museum to take, such as facilities, exhibits, topics and admission fees.
I may be premature in thinking this, but I cannot resist stating that I hope the plans to "bombard" visitors with sights and sounds of the past will not see SHM emerge as a local version of Disneyland or Universal Studios, gimmicky and entertaining but little else.
But the new SHM should not be so conservative that all we get will be interminable series of blown-up old newspaper clippings, photographs and posters and old TV re-runs such as Diary Of A Nation.
Yes, the footage of Mr Lee Kuan Yew in his most youthful prime, breaking down at a press conference to announce that Singapore had been booted out of Malaysia, makes a powerfully evocative exhibit at Colony To Nation. But that is because of the stature of the person involved, the momentousness of the event and the brevity of the footage.
There could be more of similar defining moments in the new museum, in settings which promote contemplation and perhaps even cause one or two of us to recognise for the first time that we belong here.
However, the museum could do with less of little-known personalities droning on about their first-hand experience, even when the events are as gripping as the Maria Hertogh riots and the Indonesian bombing of Macdonald House.
I found such accounts at Colony To Nation a bit trying on my attention span. It could be even more trying for fidgety school groups, many of which may be making the trip only because they have to learn more about Singapore's history.
Then there is the question of which parts of Singapore's history should be depicted at the new SHM to enlighten visitors, impressionable young Singaporeans and those young who have cultivated what they perceive is a sophisticated scepticism towards official information.
Should it be only objective, historical facts? If so, whose objective, historical facts? From the colonial masters' archives? And would interpretations of these facts be included? If so, whose interpretations?
Will it be parochial to suggest that Singapore history as retold in the museum should be told in Singaporean voices, of events as lived through by Singaporeans and recollected through their own memories, however limited or coloured? Or would our history be richer if it allows 100 external voices to boom?
Would certain events be glossed over or omitted? Some events are recent enough to be within many an adult's memory, but nary a word about them appeared at Colony To Nation. Perhaps it was out of deference to those involved and their families? But history is not about squeamishness, is it? Perhaps there is no space in the present SHM. So the curators had to be selective, a reason no longer valid when its space doubles.
Old bones ... National Museum became famous for its whale skeleton, but it had little of Singapore's own past.
Someone said the other day that politics is the authoritative allocation of values in a society. Hopefully, Singapore's history as told in the new SHM will not only accommodate objective historical facts which those holding the reins of politics will permit. Otherwise, it will inform Singaporeans about their history no better than the see-keng (dead scenes in Chinese dialect) like the whale skeleton it was famous for.
Oh yes, one last word - about fees. For SHM to be well-patronised, it should consider Tops' nine-cent apples. Everyone bought, but I don't know how many really wanted to buy.
Thus the higher the fees the SHM charges, the greater the reluctance to visit. If I have to pay $3.50, I must stay long enough to make the money worthwhile. But how many really want to give up an hour or two at one go at a museum?
First published in The Straits Times, Oct 31, 1997
Next: Let new Great World spin new memories
Copyright © 1998 Singapore Press Holdings. All Rights Reserved.
