by Dk Siti Zulaikha Pg Hj Ishak

Reflecting Blackburn, K. (2013). Family Memories as Alternative Narratives to the State’s Construction of Singapore’s National History. Oral History in Southeast Asia: Memories and Fragments. Pp. 25-41. (https://www.jstor.org/stable/43817901).

Throughout Blackburn’s article, I am reminded of George Santayana’s celebrated dictum; “those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it” (1905). Today, modern societies echo Santayana’s sentiments (and perhaps, paranoia) – scrambling to immortalise the past in all forms; from vivid prose, poetry, daring plays in theatre, to simple story-telling, artwork and culinary projects.

But what if this is futile, what if it is an extension of exacerbating antipathy?

What if this ‘newfound’ collective memory – (hidden transcripts as described in James C. Scott’s 1990 thesis) – employed by communities and individuals only too often lead towards conflict rather than peace, resentment rather than notions of appeasement, laced with determinations of revenge for grievances – real or imagined – rather than to commit or accept a grander scheme of things (viva la progresie in whatever form that may manifest) – grander scheme of things, that may have truly aimed for a greater good? In Singapore, ‘democratization of memory’ evolved exponentially in the last decade (Blackburn, 2013b). Through heritage blogs, Facebook and YouTube clips, ‘hidden’ stories of the past carved a new facet in understanding and regarding history. A most prominent example can be illustrated in the ‘saving’ of Bukit Brown Cemetery, poignantly commandeered by brownies, local volunteers that seek to preserve the ‘heritage’ of Bukit Brown Cemetery from further exhumation in the name of national development (Brownies, 2021; Chandran, 2019). The efforts began in 2011, by way of lively (and rather sentimental) blog entries (on BukitBrown) retelling emotive ‘lost history’, paired with an even more active tour program. The brownies confronted PAP’s persistent desire to renegotiate national identity and removal of history in Singapore (byte-size or otherwise) – and it is undeniable that the galvanising efforts of the local community in defending the cries of the people in preserving memories associated to the cemetery had rippling impact in the waves of a growingly intelligent society. In fact, many argued that it was the first mark of civil activism rise in Singapore, driven by fears of losing legacy, blurring of tangible memories and genealogical identities.

Alas, 2013 saw the exhumation of 4153 tombs carried out for the construction of a dual four-lane road that connects MacRitchie Viaduct to Adam Flyover (En, 2013).

Stories of pain, anguish and displacement heard – triumphant reconnection with ancestral lineage felt – yet, aspirations are just as easily dashed by the ruling party. Whose stories are told during the tours anyway? To what extent were they embellished? As Blackburn eloquently illustrated in the incident of Jalan Eunos by Shah Bin Ahmad in his paper – ‘… through the use of metaphors … distorted in collective memory and these distortions are reinforced over time’ (Blackburn, 2013a). Metaphors and distortions are still metaphors and distortions after all – and it is a difficult task to empower people’s narration of events to replace the conventional ‘Singapore Story’, when compared to ‘official’ documents that trickled top-down to the people, including Lee Kwan Yew’s official memoirs, and when positioned in the larger picture of PAP’s influence and control (albeit laced with suggestive biases or prejudice influenced by colonial voices).

I must point out that I am examining the article through the lens of a devil’s advocate, and I fully advocate for voices from below. Blackburn’s positive sentiments regarded how values and social characteristics diffused by family (as also presented by Bertaux and Thompson, 1993) have not been ‘substantially diminished by the state’ – and yet I question the truthful extent of this supposition, and the purpose of it all at the end of the day; I question the significance of alternate oral history to be encouraged as a testimony if it holds little candle in contesting and confronting the versions set in stone by PAP. Importantly, I question – must these narratives challenge official recounts, or is it enough simply as family stories to pass down with time?

Perhaps, in my hyperbolic view, it is unfair to question the purpose of memories. I reflect on Nora and Lowenthal’s views that personal memories can simply become an objective personal heritage, a reminiscent and nostalgic nod towards past experiences that can be separate from history, as ‘it concerns the presence’ (1996; 1996).  If it is seen in this view, that memory may exist simply as a tool to affirm a sense of identity rather than to dissect the past, then it is possible for recollections to be accepted as apolitical; to be accepted as separate from history’s desire to shape frameworks of the nation. In Ho’s research, she reports how memories presented on internet blogs usually skirt political history topics and avoid interrogation of the narratives given by the Singapore Story (2007). Perhaps this is sufficient in Singapore’s political climate – the internet penetration is high after all, and users continue the dialogue beyond cyberspace, and into more prominent discussions, such as the academic stage.

And so too perhaps, the aspiration in Blackburn’s sentiments that values have not been diminished by the state – one can only hope that voices from below continue to grow louder and ripple more waves in the society’s future, holding steadfast to Santayana’s dictum, or otherwise.

References:

Blackburn, K. (2013a). “Family Memories as Alternative Narratives to the State’s Construction of Singapore’s National History.” In Kah Seng Loh, Stephen Dobbs, and Ernest Koh (eds.), Oral History in Southeast Asia: Memories and Fragments, New York: Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 25-41.

Blackburn, K. (2013b). “The “Democratization of Memories in Singapore’s Past”. Bijdragen tot de Taal-, Land- en Volkenkunde. Vol 169 (4), pp. 431-456

Brownies, 2021. All Things Bukit Brown. Retrieved from https://bukitbrown.com/main/?page_id=261

Chandran, R. (2019, January 3rd). No Rest for the Dead. Reuters. Retrieved from https://www.reuters.com/article/us-singapore-landrights-cemetery-idUSKCN1OX0MM

En, S. M. (2013, Aug 6th). Exhumation of Bukit Brown Graves to Start in Oct. TodaySingapore. Retrieved from https://www.todayonline.com/singapore/exhumation-bukit-brown-graves-start-oct

Ho, S. (2007). Blogging as a Popular History Making, Blogs as a Public History: A Singapore Cast Study. Public History Review. Vol 14, pp. 64-79.

Lowenthall D. (1996). Possessed by the Past: The Heritage Crusade and the Spoils of History. New York: Free Press

Nora, P. (1996). Realms of Memory: Rethinking the French Past. New York: Columbia University

Santayana, G. (1905). Those Who Cannot Remember the Past are Condemned to Repeat It”. SAAM. Retrieved from https://americanart.si.edu/artwork/those-who-cannot-remember-past-are-condemned-repeat-it-george-santayana-life-reason-1905

Scott, J. C. (1990). Domination and the Arts of Resistance: Hidden Transcripts. New Haven: Yale University Press.