ABSTRACT Postwar urban planning in Singapore rehoused squatters and slum dwellers in emergency public housing and socialized them as model citizens. To write a social history of this urban development is to tangle with historiographical and methodological issues stemming from the use of various archives: the documents of the state, obviously, but also ‘alternative archives’ – namely, the oral histories of former squatters-turned-public-housing owners. Historical research involves ‘making do’ with these archives – reconciling issues, dealing with presentist influences and taking risks with the material. Reading against the archival grain to write the social history of the squatters extends our understanding of modern Singapore beyond the political and economic elites. It simultaneously reveals the archives as a technology of rule, containing the concerns and policy actions of their authors who, as urban planners, criminalized the squatters and deprived them of their agency and voice. Furthermore, unlike public archives elsewhere, the Singapore archives are classified and open to access in unequal parts. The real archives are often what already exists, or existed, in the public domain. Finally, the social historian must make do with oral history, which although useful still bears the influence of the official narrative called The Singapore Story.

中文翻译：

---

撰写新加坡的社会历史并利用档案

摘要 新加坡的战后城市规划在紧急公共住房中安置了擅自占地者和贫民窟居民，并将他们社会化为模范公民。为这个城市发展写一部社会史，就是与各种档案的使用所产生的史学和方法论问题纠缠不清：显然，国家的文件，但也有“另类档案”——即前寮屋居民的口述历史。 - 公屋业主。历史研究涉及对这些档案的“凑合”——调和问题、处理当前主义的影响并承担材料的风险。阅读档案资料以撰写寮屋居民的社会历史，将我们对现代新加坡的理解扩展到政治和经济精英之外。它同时揭示档案作为一种规则技术，包含作者的关切和政策行动，他们作为城市规划者将擅自占地者定为刑事犯罪并剥夺了他们的代理权和发言权。此外，与其他地方的公共档案馆不同，新加坡档案馆是保密的，并且可以在不平等的部分访问。真正的档案通常是已经存在或存在于公共领域的档案。最后，社会历史学家必须凑合口述历史，口述历史虽然有用，但仍受到官方叙述的影响，称为“新加坡故事”。在公共领域。最后，社会历史学家必须凑合口述历史，口述历史虽然有用，但仍受到官方叙述的影响，称为“新加坡故事”。在公共领域。最后，社会历史学家必须凑合口述历史，口述历史虽然有用，但仍受到官方叙述的影响，称为“新加坡故事”。