SSA 22014
Essay Question:
‘The Singapore Story is based on historical facts. … It is objective history, seen from a Singaporean standpoint.’ (Lee Hsien Loong, 1997.) What conceptual issues on the nature of history does Mr. Lee raise? Refute or defend his view that the Singapore Story is ‘objective history’.
The Singapore Story, history of Singapore, was introduced only 30years after Singapore’s independence on August 9, 1965. It was recorded in a chronological order where it followed the historical events, Japanese Occupation, race riots, merger and separation, which had happened in Singapore. Therefore, we cannot not deny the fact that incidents, 19641 and 1969 race riots, involving race and religion never happened. They are part of our history2 (Lee, 1997). The term “objective” suggested that it is not influenced by personal feeling, interpretations, or prejudice; based on facts; unbiased3. However, history is the past and historians are those who study and write about history4 (Warren, 1997). This sentence sparked an argument if Singapore Story was “objective” when it was seen from a Singapore standpoint. The Singapore Story had an objective which was for the nation building and to do so, the history curriculum was shifted significantly to the teaching and learning of Singapore’s history5 (Gan 1997). Therefore, seen from a Singaporean standpoint, we were biased, but it was objective.
The Singapore story was objective because we had used it and every part of it was based on real facts which were verifiable and justifiable and it was for the purpose of nation building. We studied history not only to learn from the past, but also to prevent history from repeating itself. When Singapore gained independence, the government had to tackle three pressing issues, “defending the nation, building social cohesion and preparing its citizens for economic survival6”, in Singapore which resulted the used of history in school was seen redundant. As Singapore economic started growing,
‘The Singapore Story is based on historical facts. … It is objective history, seen from a Singaporean standpoint.’ (Lee Hsien Loong, 1997.) What conceptual issues on the nature of history does Mr. Lee raise? Refute or defend his view that the Singapore Story is ‘objective history’.
The Singapore Story, history of Singapore, was introduced only 30years after Singapore’s independence on August 9, 1965. It was recorded in a chronological order where it followed the historical events, Japanese Occupation, race riots, merger and separation, which had happened in Singapore. Therefore, we cannot not deny the fact that incidents, 19641 and 1969 race riots, involving race and religion never happened. They are part of our history2 (Lee, 1997). The term “objective” suggested that it is not influenced by personal feeling, interpretations, or prejudice; based on facts; unbiased3. However, history is the past and historians are those who study and write about history4 (Warren, 1997). This sentence sparked an argument if Singapore Story was “objective” when it was seen from a Singapore standpoint. The Singapore Story had an objective which was for the nation building and to do so, the history curriculum was shifted significantly to the teaching and learning of Singapore’s history5 (Gan 1997). Therefore, seen from a Singaporean standpoint, we were biased, but it was objective.
The Singapore story was objective because we had used it and every part of it was based on real facts which were verifiable and justifiable and it was for the purpose of nation building. We studied history not only to learn from the past, but also to prevent history from repeating itself. When Singapore gained independence, the government had to tackle three pressing issues, “defending the nation, building social cohesion and preparing its citizens for economic survival6”, in Singapore which resulted the used of history in school was seen redundant. As Singapore economic started growing,