THE CHANGI CHAPEL AND MUSEUM
5.4 The Museum as a transnational landscape
This section offers an analysis of the transnational contestations and collaborations that have emerged within the site since it first opened. It has already been mentioned that the war was a global one which rendered its commemoration transnational as well. This is nowhere more evident than in the case of the Museum, which focuses on telling the stories of interned POWs in Singapore, and where the initial impetus for the site was borne more out of demands made by foreigners for their comrades and loved ones to be honoured. For one, as already implied, foreign visitors tend to be more sombre, and this can be attributed to the fact that the site holds for them personal meanings, especially those with family who died in the war. This is also evident when one analyzes the poignant notes pasted on the chapel walls (Plate 5.11).
Plate 5.11 Memorial notes pasted on the chapel walls
5.4.1 A more personal form of commemoration
In analyzing about 400 of such notes, a few things can be said. First, it is indeed true that foreigners do tend to personally commemorate family members who died in the war, the notes usually dedicated to “my father-”, “my brother-”, “my uncle-” or “my husband who perished in the war”. This can be compared to the notes written by the “locals” where the emphasis is generally on “honouring the many [foreign] POWs who were interned”.
There was not one note that indicates that the “locals” too suffered and died. This is an indication that “local” visitors do regard the site as nothing more than one for foreigners where “locals” are not a part of. As such, despite increased “local” coverage within the site, the experiences of the foreign soldiers still seem to take centre stage.
The other interesting thing found in analyzing the notes is that, for the most part, foreign visitors tend to indicate clearly their nationalities – “British”, “Australian” – as compared to the notes written by “local” students that tend to end with their names or the schools they are from. Also, looking at the notes’ content, apart from the ones written to honour family members, the notes left by foreigners tend to be dedicated to their own nation’s people who fought in the war. This is to say that Australian visitors would usually dedicate the note to “the Australian men and women who died” while the British visitors would honour “the Brits who went through the war”. This is an indication of how
“nationalistic” transnational commemoration can be, despite the fact that the site is located in Singapore. Together with the notes written by “locals”, it is quite clear that the Museum is still regarded by many “locals”, to be a landscape for the foreign visitor vis-à- vis one that has been “reconfigured” to become more of a site for Singaporeans.
5.4.2 A site of transnational collaborations and contentions
It is also interesting that, despite the general sentiment by most foreigners that the site is an appropriate tribute to their “national” comrades who died in the war, it has still not been spared from certain controversies. For example, in one incident, an Australian visitor came to the Museum and reflected in the visitors’ book, “the picture of the Australian about to be executed is very disturbing and should be removed; God bless Australia” (Greta Freeman, Perth, 11/2/01). While the picture of the Australian is still part of the display within the site, the incident does reflect that the Museum is not entirely free from criticisms and negative impressions that arise from outside the nation.
To provide another instance, in 2002, the Museum was also criticized by a few American visitors for not telling the stories of the Americans stationed in Singapore during the war.
To correct this, the Museum, in conjunction with the American Association of Singapore (AAS) held a service on 7 December 2002 to mark the significance of the date for both nations.6 A section of the Museum has also been dedicated to displaying a collection of war memorabilia generously donated by surviving American POWs and their family.
Essentially, these collaborative tactics are meant to remind us of the “shared sacrifices and friendships between Americans and Singaporeans [which] is indelibly written in the history of our two nations” (STB Press Release 2002).
In yet another example, it has been brought up by Jeyathurai that “the memorial site has also yet to get the Japanese tourists to the site, although a few have found their way there mainly out of curiosity”, despite attempts to facilitate the process. As he continued:-
6 Americans for the day Pearl Harbour was attacked; for Singaporeans, the day the island was first bombed
We try to make the site Japanese-friendly by putting some signs in Japanese, and ensuring stories do not reflect their forefathers too negatively. We tell students we cannot blame the Japanese today for what their seniors did.
In general, according to Jeyathurai, the main problem is not so much the representations within the site since “most of the Jap visitors tend to receive the messages of the Museum well, some of them actually feeling apologetic for what happened”. The issue is to get them interested to come down, Jeyathurai continued, “as for them, the war was a point of shame which they would rather forget; some are afraid they might be blamed”. To be sure, I have observed cases where Singaporeans, after their visit, feel rage against not only the Japanese then but also the Japanese today for the crimes inflicted in the past.
That notwithstanding, the main thing is that despite the attempts by the Museum to reign Japanese visitors in, they have generally decided to stay away from the site.
Hence, it is apparent that the Museum is indeed situated in a precarious position as how it represents the war can potentially become points of transnational resistance, some overt, as in the Americans who lobbied for representations of American servicemen in the war, and others via more latent means, such as the Japanese who simply chose to stay away from the site. It shows how the Museum is definitely open to critique from within as well as without the nation, a reflection that it is not only Singaporeans, but also foreign participants who have attempted to claim a stake within the memorial space of the site.
On the other hand, controversies may not necessarily be bad and may even result in something positive. In fact, at times, it might be a platform on which diplomatic ties between nations can be formed or strengthened, especially between those that went through a similar experience together (Gough 2000). A few examples can be seen.
In the case of the Americans, the AAS (mentioned above) and the Museum have agreed to make the memorial service dedicated to the two nations’ war dead an annual event.
The potential of cooperation between nations is also exemplified in the form of inter- museum loans of artefacts such as that between the U.K Imperial War Museum and the Museum. Foreign dignitaries are also invited for formal visits (Plate 5.12). In addition, the Museum also receives artefacts from other countries as gestures of goodwill. In Feb 2003, the Museum received an honorary plaque from the New Zealand High Commission dedicated to the ANZAC soldiers who died (Plate 5.13), and in 2002, it received from the Australian Commando Association a picture of the MV Krait trawler, used in one of the war’s successful small-scale raids in Singapore (The Straits Times 6 Jul 2002). These events are highly publicized and also seek to further diplomatic ties.
Plate 5.12 (left) Museum director showing foreign dignitaries around the Museum Plate 5.13 (right) Presentation of plaque to the Museum by the New Zealand High Commissioner