「移動時代」的來臨,強調多元族群與文化的新加坡,其博物館該如何再 現移民議題?本研究以新加坡國家博物館之歷史展廳與牛車水華人原貌館為研 究個案,透過訪談與展示分析探討其如何再現早期華人移民勞工的遷轉、歷史 與記憶,並透過所描繪的移民形象來譜寫國家歷史與記憶。 研究發現,兩間博物館有意識地嘗試跨越國家認同意識為歷史展示設下的 穩固邊界,將移民底層的歷史融入國家史中,強化遷徙造就了多元文化社會的 事實。其援引電影與劇場元素,讓早期華人移工與「博物館的聲音」共同享用 發言權,更透過博物館的力量使其進行「遷轉」,戲劇性地被納入我群。然而, 研究發現館方「多聲體驗」的設計,卻共同編織著「單一敘事」,如延續英國 殖民制度的族群分類來治理、進而強化國家-族群間的穩定性。其次,博物館亦 透過移工形象的選擇與刻畫,不論是「刻苦耐勞」或「投身國家建設」,均投 射出當今新加坡社會所重視的價值與對其國民之要求與期許。而透過與華人會 館的訪談,發現地方認同和國家的架構有牴觸,新加坡的認同輪廓正是複雜游 移的主客關係在失根、尋根與定根的過程中逐漸變得清楚。 本研究建議,國家館在展示移民的歷史,可進一步引導社會思考今日邊界 的建構脈絡;使人民體認到多元文化社會建立在他族文化與我群的相會交融, 是經歷無數離散、跨界、根植與錯位的結果;而牛車水地區豐富的意義銘刻在 地景與人物的歷史記憶;原貌館未來展示的潛能在地方(place-making)的尺度, 將華人生命的意義地方化,或許,透過這樣的論述,疆界的流動性便變得可能。
As the world reaches the “era of migration”, how should the museums of a country like Singapore, that focus greatly on its multicultural/ethnic heritage, face issues of migration? This paper takes the National Museum of Singapore (History Gallery) and the Chinatown Heritage Centre as case studies, conducts interviews and analyzes exhibitions to discern the transition, history and memory of the early Chinese migrant laborers; and how the laborers’ images further depict national history. This study found that both museums consciously attempted to cross the border that national awareness laid for exhibiting history, by integrating migrant laborer into national history, strengthening today’s multivariate society as results of migration. Citing from film/theater elements, the early Chinese migrant laborers are provided with a voice equal to the “museum voice”, allowing them to dramatically went from the other to the self. However, the multi-voice experience seemed to be co-weaving a “single narrative, such as the continuation of colonial race system to discipline, govern and strengthen nation-ethnic stability. Further, the museums use the laborers’ images to shape a new national identity; images of diligence, loyalty, and national devotion projected the value and expectation of modern Singapore society. In addition, the perspectives of the ‘hui-kuans’ demonstrated a fracture between the nation- constructed and local culture identity, as the latter contravenes with national discourse; the delineation of Singaporean identity becomes clear though the process of losing, finding and embedding one’s roots within the complicated self-other relationship. On displaying migration history under a multicultural and multi-ethnic society, NMS can direct the public to ponder on the construction of borders, to realize that a multicultural society is built on the encounter and intermingle of self and other, and numerous diaspora, boarder-crossing, rooting and dislocating. CHC, as the significance of Chinatown lies in its locality and the historical memory etched to its landscape and people, has great potential in place-making and localizing the memories and meaning of early Chinese migrants. Perhaps though this kind of discourse, mobile borders can be possible.