Read the first two paragraphs from this article on the new publication on Singapore history called Singapore

A 700-year History, as well as the two other articles posted on Edmodo.

What is the difference between shift in and rewriting history / historical narrative. (Ella & Co.
Pte Ltd)
Rewrite: to write (something) again especially in a different way in order to improve it or to include new
information
Shift: a slight change in position, direction, or tendency
1.

Rewriting history means that the

story/facts is/are changed
altogether.
Rewriting history also means to
discredit the facts placed on the
previous narrative!
Rewriting history can also mean
that the current narrative is
factually correct, but is being
rewritten so that it is projected in
a different way.

A shift in history does not necessarily imply that the current narrative is
wrong. The current narrative could still be factually correct, but there are
additions to it, and this opens up new dimensions/changes the focus in
which people view the history.
A shift in history can bring new perspectives, facts, evidence, previously
hidden due to political reasons or that it was simply undiscovered or not
seriously considered (like they didnt bother to really research on that
artefact for example). This can also mean a greater emphasis placed on
another perspective or narrative, over the current narrative.
in Singapores context, the governent just excluded the parts before 19th
century, so we would be just shifting the focus of SGs history

2.
Why is this shift/rewriting necessary?
This shift is necessary as it allows students to explore Singapores origin as a port of call and her connections
to the region and the world. Singaporeans will feel more rooted if they see their early predecessors as part of a
longer regional legacy, rather than a British colonial transplant. With this shift, Singaporeans can construct an
identity for themselves and it creates something to live for: identity and a desire to know ones ancestors. This
identity will be important in order to be rooted to who we are as Singapore becomes more global. Rewriting
history is crucial for modern Singapore to reinforce a more global perspective as stability can be ensured
through showing a long cohabitation between the Malays and the Chinese. Singapore has become a fastpaced, highly urbanized society where people are getting disoriented, therefore there is a need to look at
Singapores heritage and its historical legacy.
Mr. Kwa argues that the rewriting of the islands history will help citizens accept the population
explosion and become more inclusive. Every generation has to rewrite its history, he said. While it
used to suit Singapore to see itself as a city-state with a British heritage, modern Singapore needs
a different interpretation of history to reinforce a more global perspective, he suggested. - from new
history

3.
What are the parallels between Early Emporium and World City in the following areas:
Demographics - ethnic relations
mixed racial demographic
Cultural, linguistic and racial diversity
Coexisting peacefully
International trade
Mostly Malay
Identity - national and citizen
Does Temasek have an identity then?
Based on the game, we were only a bunch of traders and merchants and wandering monks. (How credible is
the game oh gosh cries.) We did not have a cohesive identity as we are not a country, and no one is tied to this
land by a piece of paper (law), or anything but the fact that there are opportunities here. Our identity is also
largely economically driven - everyone comes here to work and make a living.
How has our identity changed?

Paradigm shift - see Singapore on a longer continuum, our rise and falls. We have a rich history, but
should it affect how we conduct ourselves? How we interact with our neighbours? What is at the core of
our identity? What our Singapore Story is, in a centurys time?
o
It was not predominantly Chinese before, as Chinese merchants and traders just came and went. (And
stopped coming at all in the city.) Now 40% foreigners, but predominantly Chinese.
o
Identity now is built on a metropolitan city-state with a strong economy (economically driven), hence we
attract expats (link to foreigners!)
o
Way of life has changed, but minus technological innovations we are still a city-state in the middle of SEA.
We constantly adapt to SEA region and the world, and get affected by domestic policies of hegemonic
powers.
o
Our national identity now is built on post-colonial experiences, experiences-wise we do not share the
same narrative, however, the national identity may share the same fundamentals - multicultural society
driven by the need for social cohesiveness/cohesion in order to achieve a shared economic
outcome/prosperity.
o
Small country finding our way in a harsh asymmetrical world order. Reinvent itself to stay relevant in to
the 21st century.the 15th century in the Ming dynasty.) Indigenous people roamed
o
Exceptional leaders as one source says, who have shaped our city to be who we are today
o
Resumes its traditional role as an Asian port-city
Socio-economic tensions
Creating a new social class
By co-opting foreigners of exceptional abilities into our society, it
Geopolitics
How has our geographical location affected Temasek?
It made it a thriving port in the 13th-14th century as the Chinese stopped over to repair ships
and trade.
How has it remained the same?
Nature as a port-city means our survival and prosperity are dependent on external economies,
cycles and even international politics.
How has that changed now?
We are still a little red dot in a Malay region. In the globalised world, our geographical location
still warrants us the advantage of being a good maritime port. However, what binds us are no
longer restricted to geographical locations, and we are trying to take on bigger entities than our
size - for eg. speaking up at the UN. Our geographical location still affects politics, as the
surrounding countries affect political maneuvering and we have to be cautious not to offend the
Malay-dominated neighbouring countries.
4.

Should the government be concerned when its citizens become educated with new knowledge
(about its countrys history)? Why or why not?
No, the government should not be concerned Should the government not fear losing its power when the
citizens know too much?
1). Regardless of the governments motives, every citizen has the right to know a holistic view of his countrys
history.
2).It is also essential for a country to build a genuine national identity that can resonate with everyone.
3). The government should take the first step of educating its citizens with new knowledge, as now in the age
of globalization, if the citizens come to know an alternative history from what the government tells them through
other channels, the governments credibility would be severely damaged, which may result in unnecessary
political turmoils and social riots.
E.g. The history of Tiananmen Square Protests of 1989 or well known as June Fourth Incident has never been
mentioned in the Chinese History Textbooks, which focus on the heroic battles against the Japanese and the
Nationalists, and the later vigorous nation building. In the recent years, when the June Fourth Incident, a
student-led pro-democratic demonstration becomes more and more well-known, especially in regions like
Hong Kong and Taiwan, more resentments and grievances are aired out. This year, there was a widespread
protest took place in Hong Kong on the 4th June, while no information is revealed in mainland China.
(Mdm Aliahs comments: China is guarded about their history, they do not want to seem more vulnerable as
they are a big power.)

Imagine that you are a historian in the year 2514. What would be written about Singapore's history?