In our humble opinion, the beauty of history lies in its multifaceted approach where different groups of people have different experiences and interpretations in different circumstances over the same period.
While we are documenting oral accounts of kampong resettlement, Hock Lee Bus Riots and conservation issues in Queenstown, there are residents who detest the ongoing developments and there are some who welcome them. As a conservationist group, are we going to ignore or extinguish comments or opinions which stray from our version of the "Queenstown Story?" No!
No one possesses a monopoly in writing history and heritage. Even though the film is banned and the stories of those exiled will not be screened in public, we cannot pretend that these voices do not exist, whether they are "distorted or untruthful."
Then, who should determine what is deemed as a "distorted and untruthful account?"
One of our motivations in collecting old photographs and documenting social memories can be attributed to the differing opinions/factual evidences towards the official narrative of Queenstown some 6 or 7 years ago. Why did the narrative claim that Queenstown residents "take it our stride,""welcome the developments" or "bo bian" about resettlement when there are documented accounts of strikes and violence against the Public Works Department? How on earth was Toa Payoh considered as the first satellite town in our Social Studies text book when the estate was constructed some 15 years after Queenstown?
By censoring historical accounts, "truth" is essentially what the censor perceives to be the truth, instead of what it actually was, that different groups of people have differing experiences and interpretations in different circumstances.
My Community
*Article first appeared on https://www.facebook.com/myqueenstown/posts/898408310187656