Thought scribble: Whose history is it?

Based on what Tan Sri Muhyiddin Yassin said in a news report by Bernama, taken from The Edge Malaysia,

On the suggestion by his deputy, Datuk Dr Wee Ka Siong, for the contents of History textbooks to be reviewed, Muhyiddin said history which was something that happened in the past, could not be altered or added.

"It can be improved from time to time but you cannot add something that wasn't there. Maybe what Wee meant was you need to evaluate whether it qualifies to be considered as history or not," he said.

Wee had suggested that the contents of History textbooks be reviewed on the ground that it did not touch on the struggle and contributions of other races towards national development. — Bernama

I wonder whether he understood what he said by saying history can be 'improved' from time to time. On the more critical side, what defines something to be considered as history or not? Is it only defined by the powers that be? Or is it defined by the good results (as in opposing colonization)or made obsolete because of it's impressions (racial riots & protest rallies)?

réfléchir un moment