Personally, I enjoyed the trail, looking at things we have not seen for a long time ever since primary/secondary school excursions. It was very refreshing for me.


The conservation was done fairly well, with most monuments that were established in the past still greatly preserved. Except for a few vandalisms at times, especially the wordings on Raffles’ statue, being scratched. This is a really good effort in keeping such a colorful past of ours. However, commercially wise, in the Civic District, the monuments are mostly free of charge; there was no need for an entrance fee. But as far as the commercial reuse is concern, only the Raffles’ landing site had been greatly emphasis. The other monuments were mentioned, but not used as widely as the Raffles’ one. This is probably because we shape our history according from him; hence, his statue has been widely propagated.


The monuments in the Esplanade Park also did not really relate with the park itself. This is because the park was named in the honor of Queen Elizabeth’s coronation. Whereas the monuments in the park was with regards to the World War 2 and not colonial rule. It is of a little irony that it was because of the British’s incapability to hold onto Singapore which led to our fall in WW2, yet those who died for our country were commemorated in the same place as well.
However on the other hand, this can be portrayed as the recognition of our history, both the colonial past and the war past.


The museums were effective in outing across the story of Singapore as a nation, but it was a bias account of story. This is so because what we seen in the museums are usually the ideal situation. The accounts presented there may be true, but not the full story was told. The missing elements were the ones that contributed to the other side of what was presented in the museums, such as the alternative viewpoints of the stories, for example, whether life in Singapore was normal during the Japanese occupation or not, was it really all cruelty that we suffered as portrayed by the museums.


Personally I feel that the museum portrayed a very bias viewpoint of Singapore history to those who visit the place. It was like a propaganda tool/location, which attracts a vast number of tourists who are interested in Singapore’s history.


But who are we to say that it is bias or not. As historians, we shape history in the way we want it, as said by Winston Churchill ‘History is written by victors’ as a nation-building tool, it was probably essential for our history to be shaped this way for some unforeseen reasons.
As historians, we would probably view such information with objectivity, but for the non-historians who would just take in such information in their face, it is slightly unfair of them, unless they have the interest to go find out the other side. In short, this maybe a lie, a white lie in nicer terms, because after all ‘Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it’ – Santayana. Hence such a portrayal is to serve as a constant reminder for us to not take our success for granted.

posted by LynnTPL

********************