The Lie of Singapore
I have written a lot about Singapore and Malaysia here. Posts, here and there, that showcase aspects of their incestuous relationship.
But I never really stated explicitly, or more clearly debunk, the pernicious state narratives that both states and their comprador classes vehemently adhere to.
So I am going to rectify that right now.
Note: communal and racial are synonyms in Singapore and Malaysian politics. See here for elaboration.
General Background
The region was known as Malaya and Northern Borneo, back in the 19th and first half of the 20th century, consisting of the Malay Peninsula and their surrounding islands and the British controlled part of Borneo, but explicitly did not include the Riau Islands, were under Dutch administration or the Southern Thailand provinces, which were seceded to the Thai Monarchy in 1909, even though both regions had Malay majorities.
This region was sorted in more or less 3 distinct types of administrations, the federated and unfederated Malay Sultanates, in addition to the the protectorate of Brunei, in which over time the role of the Sultans diminished as the power of the colonial British advisers grew. The second was the Strait Settlements, British crown colonies which British laissez-faire Capitalism was allowed to flourish, especially in goods that the British were particularly good at trading (smuggling), opium. The colonies in Borneo, Sarawak and North Borneo Chartered Company (Sabah) was land “given” by the British protectorate Brunei to the British. Unlike in Malaya, Sarawak and North Borneo was also under direct control of the British, and Sarawak in particular was under the rule of the “White Rajah” (White King). Missionary influence especially was prevalent here, which resulted in more extensive use of English and Christianity being the majority in the state.
The Strait Settlements were crown colonies located in strategic positions within the Straits of Malacca, and were concentrated in the 3 main ports of Melaka, Penang (now officially called Pulau Pinang) and Singapore. These ports were fully controlled by the British and had appointed governors. The infamous one being Stamford Raffles, so-called founder of Singapore.
Nearing independence in the 1940s and 1950s. Guerrilla warfare was being waged by the Communist Party of Malaya, with membership within their mass organisations nearing 50% of the entire workforce. Furthermore there were unrest in others parts of the Malayan economy. Indian labourers in rubber plantations, Chinese miners in Tin mines, the Malay peasantry facing accumulation by dispossession and oppression by the Chinese capitalists, local Malay landlords, and the general comprador Malay Sultanates and their British advisors.
Independence was the name of the game, with waves of unrest and decolonization swept across East Asia at that time. In China, in Korea, in the Philippines, in Indonesia and in Viet Nam.
Malaya was no exception.
The Official Narrative™️
We gained independence in 1957 - under the "good graces" of the British, who simply let us free after of course, negotiations by the Malay sultans themselves. One infamous speech in which the Yang di-Pertuan Agong (the elected King) screamed the word "Merdeka!" (independence) 7 times and centuries of colonial exploitation just vanishes! At this point, this independence was only for the Malay Peninsula sultanates, and so logically lead to the official name of the federation of Malaya.
After a decades spanning communist guerilla warfare, the so-called 'insurgency', and British inability to maintain and sustain their prized colony in Southeast Asia, and fear of the so-called domino effect if communists and anti-colonial forces were to win, they came up with the Malaysia Agreement. An opaque document that mainly involved negotiations and consultations with the comprador elite and their masters. It stipulated that the British colonies of Sarawak, the North Borneo Chartered Company (Sabah), Malaya and Singapore were to merge into Malaysia.
This was to the dismay of the Malays, the British-educated elites in the United Malays National Organisation (UMNO) proclaimed, because the indigenous were a minority in their own native land. The Malays, they proclaim, do not want to include Chinese majority Singapore in the federation. Even including Sarawak was contentious, because Sarawak was majority Christian.
Singapore’s British educated Chinese elite, influenced by the British Labour Party and the Fabian society, formed the People’s Action Party. There was a more radical sect within the party that called for the creation of a unified proletarian state. The party, was in theory, on-board with unification.
The various state actors signed the agreement in 1963 to form a unified and federated Malaysia.
However, the official narratives warns us, racial tensions were simmering. The Malays were not giving equal voting representation to the Chinese majority in Singapore. The Malays, were also afraid of a secret Chinese communist takeover, precipitated itself by the super-liberal People’s Action Party!
The Racialised Class Realities laid bare
Secret negotiations were taking place between the reactionary comprador elements of the PAP and UMNO, even before the signing of the 1963 Malaysia Agreement, of an eventual secession of Singapore.
The elites in Singapore publicly welcomed the idea of unification, and so the infamous clip of Lee Kuan Yew crying after Singapore being “kicked” from federation was widespread. Little did others know until decades later that it was merely a facade, when he was the head of the clique that lead the negotiations for separation.
It would be good for Singapore because they would remain in a singular currency market with the underdeveloped parts of Malaya and North Borneo, without dealing with rising labour militancy. Think the Eurozone with the European periphery. As I mentioned before, Singapore's departure would secure the politial hegemony of UMNO.
"When the Tunku (the first Prime Minister of Malaysia) first informed Keng Swee in December last year (1964) of his desire to have Singapore "hive off" from Malaya, it generated considerable excitement amongst us first because this showed their realisation that we cannot be fixed in Malaysia and the supremacy of Malay communalists assured forever. Next, it gave us an escape, if there is to be trouble in Malaya with communal clashes over language and other issues. We might in such a rearrangement insulate ourselves from communal conflict which is building up in Malaya.
"[The] greatest attraction of this rearrangement is our hope to get the benefits of all worlds - the common market, political stability with economic expansion, and autonomy in Singapore without interference from KL. The picture of a prosperous and flourishing Singapore doing better than the rest of Malaysia is most attractive."
And here is where the whole story crumbles, from the words of Singapore's infamous and first Prime Minister himself, Lee Kuan Yew.
The fake stories about our so-called independence laid bare for what it was and continues to be. Lies, regurgitated by compradors and foreign Capital.
Epilogue
This brief exposition of independence was of course simplified and did not include many of the nuances that made up the whole story. From the inclusion of North Borneo, Sarawak and Brunei, disagreements between the various Sultans, the specific amendments to accommodate Singapore's brief inclusion in the federation, the voting boycotts, racial riots and the Northern Borneo Communist uprisings, and the many grassroots shifts that had occurred by the time of independence and the couples of decades after. Many had to be foresaken for brevity.
History does not spare the sympathy to give us breaks.
In my previous characterizations of Singapore, I tried to convey this Europhilia that was/is heavily present in the elite's unsophisticated and underdeveloped minds.
Just read their own words -
Next, it gave us an escape, if there is to be trouble in Malaya with communal clashes over language and other issues
Who has not had the displeasure of interacting with a white European who has definitely exclaimed that they are not racist, while actively benefitting, supporting and instigating racism? How are these words any different?
The guardians of so-called "Asian values", while in actuality mirror their European counterparts in crystal clear clarity. This is recognised by many of the European chauvinists, who often emphasize that the Orientals can only be prosperous if they imitate the West, with Singapore being their prime example.
Singapore's role in the world economy is like that of South Korea, Rwanda, United Arab Emirates, or Panama. It is, and continues to be, a colonial outpost of US hegemony. Treat it as so.
Learn to read through the libspeak that a lot of the Singaporean and Malaysian elites like to shroud themselves in.