even if the younger generations of Singaporeans reject the state’s narrative in their bid for more credible histories, what yardsticks of ‘credibility’ do they abide by? That would be a very pertinent question towards the endeavour of restoring less linear and much more complex narratives of Singapore’s history, wouldn’t it? With no offence or slight intended at their intelligence (and no intention to privilege the historian’s craft), one hardly expects a majority of Singaporeans (especially the younger unschooled ones) to abide by academic standards of verification etc. If some Singaporeans’ rejection of National Education is motivated by youthful, idealistic non-conformism or political disgruntlement with being told what to know by a perceived nanny state, what implications would this hold for the kinds of narratives that would be readily consumed and accepted by these Singaporeans? Or to put it in another way, would the situation occur when a ‘dissenting’ narrative of Singapore history is preferred over a ‘complicating’ narrative? They don’t appear to me to be mutually exclusive of course, since a narrative which introduces more dimensions and complications than that presented by the Singapore Story necessarily raises dissent with the latter’s representation. But it’s quite plausible that 1) present political unhappiness with the government’s paternalism might translate into some Singaporeans quite naturally tending towards narratives centering on political dissent against the PAP, which is one important theme, but inadvertently only one approach of reinstating a much richer and more multi-faceted Singapore history 2) dissenting narratives and representations are accorded ‘credibility’ simply because they put the PAP in a bad light, or are simply fresh, which are hardly acceptable assurances of a representation’s veractiy from the historian’s point of view.

Dr Hong’s juxtaposition of the angst about gaps in public knowledge of Singapore’s history heralded by the passing of one of the Singapore’s Old Guard with the younger generation’s rejection of National Education as ‘boring propaganda’ reveals that some Singaporeans are concerned with a deeper and broader understanding of Singapore’s history than the Singapore Story allows, rather than simply narratives of dissent. Yet, I felt it was telling that she spoke of ’sentimentality’ being as attractive as ’skepticism’ in underpinning the students’ attitude towards Singapore history. One, it suggests to me that the government should scrap its National Education and devise new ways of appealing to the ’sentimentality’ of the people. Seondly, it hints that just as historians of Singaporean history are concerned with transcending and revising Singapore’s history, they have to reflect on the implications the way the Singapore public interact or respond to historical representations and narratives present for their work.

A complicating, richer, more nuanced, veracious Singapore history undoubtedly can also a sentimentally appealing and pleasing one, but all kinds of contentions and tensions and historiographical concerns that could crop up and matter in the process.