Are we patronisers of Singapore History?

The heritage trail has exposed many things for me as a student. Important facts and ideas that I wasn’t exposed to in school was out in the open for me. Through sculptures, paintings, preserved buildings I was not only able to form my own assumptions and justify them but also was able to challenge preconceived notions about Singapore with ease. This trail also made me realise that our education, especially Singapore’s History at Pre-University level, is taught in a very limited and narrow scope. As students we aren’t really exposed to a lot of stuff and we are not allowed to challenge assumptions, specifically that about Singapore’s formation and its survival before 1819.

I definitely learnt a lot more things about Singapore. As a history student however, I was able to put things together and form my own thoughts about the birth of Singapore. One aspect of this trial that I found was exceptionally interesting was the meanings behind the architectural structure

1. Architecture

The architectural structure of the buildings in Singapore gives a glimpse of what life in Pre-1819 Singapore was like. They often had various meanings behind it, unlike today. Take for example; such structures would reflect one’s vocation, wealth and economic status and sometimes even the particular group of dialect or race that the person belongs to.

Certain buildings also show how specific groups of people had allocated areas for them. Take for example, the Chinese on the east and the Indians on the west. On a closer inspection we do see remnants of evidences to show how communication and trade was made possible back then.

Another notion is that such architectural structures are preserved to educate the young about the history of our culture, how Singapore evolved and somehow to justify that was a Singapore before 1819. However, only popular historical sites and buildings are often harped upon for they more clearly represent and portray the formation of Singapore, the maintenance of its legislative system and how it evolved to become the First World Nation that it is today. This shadows other less known places which I feel are more rich in offering an in-depth analysis of what kind of country Singapore was like. Furthermore, it is these places that clearly represent why certain dialect groups and certain races are often linked with specific vocations and even specific streets and places of Singapore. We aren’t really exposed to such interesting facts and notions in our curriculums, rather what is often stressed upon in our education is how Singapore was formed.

We do need a new approach to the teaching of Singapore History. It shouldn’t just be a one sided narration which encourages nothing more than blind acceptance of our history but rather students should be exposed to such interesting aspects of Singapore which allows them to analyse, question and evaluate for themselves whether the stories told by our grandparents is really true and whether Singapore really reflects the slanted narration in our textbooks. History students and teachers shouldn’t just be mere patronisers of our History but rather analysers and critiques of it.


Jasmine