Singapura

      Friday, September 14^th: Melaya and Singapura

Two museums in particular were important in contextualising Singapore this week. The first was the National Museum of Singapore, with a wonderful exhibit on Singapore’s history. The second was the Museum of Asian Civilisations, set in the rambling halls of the old Parliament House on the river.

I will not go into what I learned about Singapore’s history in detail here, but just draw out some important and over-arching themes and points that I found particularly interesting and relevant to my research.

Firstly: the context of the 1940s and 1950s, when Singapore ‘fought’ (without fighting) for its independence from Britain and began forming the ideology, outlook, and political structure of the modern state.

Secondly, the layers upon layers of history here in this ‘place where the trade winds end’.

On the first note: I am better understanding the PAP and why Singapore ‘is’ the way it is due to what happened in the 1940s and 1950s. Notably, the war – and the Japanese Occupation; the ‘Merdaka’ movement for Malayan independence from London, and the nascent political ideology of both the People’s Action Party (capitalist / socialist democracy) and the socialist / communist / more radical forces that were also at work during the time (and are now embedded in Singapore as well).

What I found particularly interesting was that Singapore was born out of, and the PAP party a direct result of, anti-Western and Anti-imperialist sentiment: the rolling back of Western (particularly British) influence and control was central to the movement in the 1940s and 1950s. In fact, in its early days, the PAP had many radical elements and Singapore was really only ‘allowed’ its independence when it could prove to the British (and probably the CIA) that it would be a Bulwark AGAINST communism and would strongly stifle any communist discord.

It would be no Indochine, it promised.

Which is interesting given that from the 1980s onward, Western ideas and competition with the West has been increasingly prominent in Singapore.

A.      Where have those radical, Marxist forces gone within Singapore? Do they still exist? If so, in what forms? In what neighbourhoods?

B.      Or will / has the PAP itself changed / reformed enough to ‘absorb’ these more radical ideas and forces?

C.      . Did London begin to re-assert its influence, control in ‘other ways’ from the ‘Big Bang’ of the 1980s, in the form of ever more important financial and policy ties? And, specific to me, is the ‘Creative City’ one of those forms of ‘new Colonialism?’

D.      . Or, on the other hand, did Singapore, after ‘shedding itself’ of British control, turn back toward Britain / the West on its own accord? Did the rise of the neoliberal state in the 1980s cause Singapore to re-integrate itself in many ways with both the economic orthodoxy of the West and also certain strands of political / cultural ideology, such as the Creative City?

E.       If Singapore was ‘Born’ out of strikes, protests, labor unions and movements, etc, striving for equality, better housing, education, and representation *(in 1940s and 1950s), then will the current “Money obsessed” (internet quote) neoliberal state be the ‘death’ of Singapore? Has it been recolonized? (similar question to above)

F.       Is the ‘Soul’ of Singapore a free-trading, unequal, port city, or a communist one? Can these two ‘souls’ exist?

G.     Is the threat of communism / unrest / revolution still there?

H.      What does the relationship with Communist China mean for Singapore – in terms of political ideology? Social / Cultural ideology?

II. Early Singapore v. Later Singapore

Early Singapore (1950s – 1970s)

Housing / Infrastructure improvements

Egalitarian

Racial mixing / ideology of diversity, tolerance and nationhood

Sports, cultural activities

Later Singaore (1980s-Present)

Neoliberal

Growing inequality (Dhamani – citation)

Gentrification?

Growing influence of ‘creative city’ and continued links to London + Wall Street

Reliance on Foreign labor – tension

Reinforcement of Anglo / American / Chinese Elite?

III. Is ‘creative city’ / ‘Experiential city’ (TC Chang, 2012) a ‘playground’ for Singapore’s new and old elite?

More Questions:

1.       Why was Singapore so eager to embrace foreign influence from the 1980s (or why were these foreign influences so eager to embrace Singapore?) when the early nation-building rejected these exogenous influences? (1950s // 1960s)

2.       Why is / wasn’t Singapore satisfied with being a quasi-socialist, semi-developed welfare state (a slightly better Cuba?) Why transition to neoliberal, unequal State?