The story of Temasik

From Sultanate to Brave New World

A Case Study of Singapore. By Hasbullah Shafi'iy 20.07.2009

(gm). On the 29th of January 1819, Stamford Raffles, newly appointed Governor-General of Bencoolen, landed on the shores of Singapore. That arrival would shape the next one hundred and forty four years of the island's history. Singapore on that day was still de jure part of the Johor Sultanate of Tengku Abdur Rahman, though it was practically under the administration and legislation of the local vizier, Temenggung Abdur Rahman. Convinced that the British needed a new base in Southeast Asia and with the support of Lord Hastings, the Governor General of India, Raffles had set out on a mission to find the most strategic spot in the region: firstly, to counter Dutch colonial ambitions there and secondly, to enhance the sea trade route between Britain and China. Singapore seemed at once to be the ideal geopolitical decision. Its transition from a Sultanate to a British colony commenced.

Tengku Abdur Rahman was under the influence of the Dutch and therefore would never agree to a British base in Singapore and the Dutch on the other hand had not yet realised the strategic significance of the island. Raffles had to now undertake a Machiavellian approach to the matter to swiftly secure it as a new British colony. He calculated the prevalent political tension with regards to the legitimacy of Tengku Abdur Rahman's succession to the throne of his late father, to be the loophole that can be the catalyst to the transition. The exiled Hussein Mu'azzam Shah, who was considered by some of the nobility in Johor as well as Temenggung Abdur Rahman to be the legitimate heir to the Johor Sultanate, was immediately recognised by the British as the new Sultan and smuggled into Singapore despite Dutch indignation. Through financial support and political recognition, Raffles had gained both Hussein Shah's and the Temenggung's favour to establish a base in Singapore that would soon become a colony.

On the 6th of February 1819, Raffles signed a treaty with Hussein shah and the Temenggung that gave the British permission to establish a trading post in Singapore. Four years later, having realised how beneficial Singapore may be for British power in Southeast Asia, Raffles signed a second treaty with the two puppets on the 7th of June 1823 that extended British possession of most of the island.

In other words, the island was purchased by the British with a meagre annual stipend of $1500 and $800 to the newly recognised Tengku, Hussein Shah, and the old Temenggong respectively. This was just a minor preview of British machinations in the greater Muslim world over the next century – Shah Muzaffaruddin of Persia in return for the entire unexplored petroleum fields of Persia, Shaikh Mubarak Al-Sabah in return for the Gulf port of Kuwait and Sheriff Hussein in return for Jerusalem and the break-up of the Hijaz from the Ottoman Sultanate.

The procurement of Singapore increased tension between the British who were now on the gaining side and the Dutch who were rather appalled most of the time. Then came the 1824 Anglo-Dutch treaty for a final break-up of the Malay Archipelago. The Malaccan Strait became the dividing line between the two powers – North to the British and South to the Dutch. Almost a century later, the Sykes-Picot agreement would similarly divide the greater Muslim Sultanate (Ottoman Empire) into three regions of influence amongst the British, the French and the Russians.

After the break-up, from 1826 to 1942, Singapore functioned as part of the British Straits Settlements and then soon a separate Crown Colony, which was directly administered by the Colonial office in London. The island moved from an important trading port to a major city because of an incremental rise in immigration that commenced with the opening of the Suez Canal in 1869. In 1942, the Japanese took over Singapore at the complete surprise and shock of the British superpower as a counter measure to repel them from the region, and for imperial reasons of their own besides Singapore's strategic location per se. However, it did not last long. When the USA devastated Hiroshima and Nagasaki forcing the Japanese to surrender, Singapore was given back to the British. From this point, there came a short lull in Singapore's political history, albeit internal social disarray due to disapprobation of British rule since they were not successfully protected from Japan. Independence movements arose and parliamentary politics led to the set up of first an Executive Council and then Legislative Council that eventually ended up in a Merger with Malaysia. That too did not last and finally Singapura became an independent City-State on the 9th of August 1965 under the rule of the People's Action Party (PAP).

Lee Kuan Yew, the first Prime Minister and current Minister Mentor, cried the day Singapore was given independence. He mentioned that all his adult life he had believed in the Malaysian merger and the unity of the two territories. The idea of the merger was to make Singapore an autonomous island functioning under its own constitution but joined with Malaysia in its economy. That means three important ports – Singapore, Melaka and Penang – that could collectively benefit the merging states economically and geopolitically. Today, over 50,000 vessels pass through the Malaccan strait per year carrying about one-quarter of the world's traded goods including oil, Chinese manufactures, and Indonesian coffee. When the independence came, Lee Kuan Yew lost that economic and strategic opportunity and therefore had to base the independent island's economy heavily on exports, the entrepot trade and the international financial markets and services.

It can be seen now that from the 29th of January 1819 to the present, Singapore has only existed for geopolitical reasons that have made it the world's busiest port today, in terms of shipping tonnage. Hence, Singapore's existence has always been based entirely on economic reasons. With regards to its evolution over the last forty years since independence, Lee Kuan Yew, had boasted of taking Singapore from the status of a Third-World Nation-state to that of a First-World Nation-state. In truth, Singapore's Independence Day marked the direction the small City-State Island would take not to reach First-World status but Brave-New-World status.

The deceptive tourist image of Singapore – impeccably clean and crime-free, no slums and poverty, minimal unemployment, multi-racial society living in harmony, one of the world's highest GDP growth rates, highly efficient transport system – hides the subtle and silent oppression that lurks beneath.

Aldous Huxley published Brave New World in 1932. It was an accurate socio-political description of a decaying society, which if allowed to carry on in a solely economic direction would lead to the dysfunction of organic human existence and will be replaced by a technical and utilitarian society groomed to serve a Meritocracy devoid of History, Religion, Education and even Emotion living only under the command of the State and for the State, and for Economic efficiency. It was far beyond a gloomy prognostication of the future. Little did he think that half a century later, his novel might serve as apposite education for Singaporeans. Brave New World was not Totalitarianism – the picture that George Orwell painted in 1984, which was the other route many countries had taken after Colonialism. It was a benevolent dictatorship. In connecting it to Singapore, it may best be described as Authoritarian Capitalism, a term the German philosopher, Peter Sloterdijk, has often used. In fact, he has on a few occasions given Singapore as an apt example of that term.

Singapore's one striking parallelism to BNW is its one-party rule since Independence that has assumed an almost parental authority over its citizens. One man, Lee Kuan Yew, has led that one party since 1965. Forty years of psychological conditioning by this parent party, under Lee Kuan Yew the father figure, has rendered its residents absolutely docile so much so that everyone knows the State is above the individual and the family; that to achieve productive efficiency is the primary function of a Singaporean. Everything else is secondary.

More than half of the major businesses in Singapore are state-owned through government entities like Government of Singapore Investment Corporation and Temasek Holdings. They account for sixty percent of the country's GDP. With no natural resources (even water supply is inadequate), no agriculture, and little manufacturing of its own, Singapore has entered deep into international financial markets and services but all at the expense of individual freedom. Politics is not allowed for discussion in public, no press freedom (ranked 153rd out of 195 countries), no legal political rival is allowed to exist in competition with the ruling party, and yet the country has achieved high economic status with a relatively strong currency compared to the other countries of the region. Freedom therefore is not a pre-requisite for Capitalism in Singapore. That was what Huxley portrayed in BNW. No wonder, Sue Anne Tellman in her online article about Singapore (published in the New Internationalist, January 1995) described it as 'Happy-Face Fascism'. Eleven years later (January 2006), John Cobin, Ph.D. wrote two articles about Singapore for the Times Examiner, and entitled them 'Brave New Singapore'.

Singapore has avoided Western Liberalism but has simultaneously concocted 'Asian Democracy' and 'Asian Values' to camouflage this Authoritarian Capitalism. Dr. Christopher Lingle has described this in his book Singapore's Authoritarian Capitalism with great detail. His conclusion was the need to make Singapore democratic. However, this essay is not to show the need for Democracy or Liberalism in Singapore, but to illustrate, besides others, how in the process of this particular country's transformation, society, the individual and the family has been completely conditioned and channelled (and therefore disrupted) to fulfil a specific task on behalf of a Parent State. The disruption of the individual and the family can be clearly seen in the small country's divorce rates (3 out of 10 marriages end in divorce), suicide rates (1 suicide per day) and low fertility rates (1.29 children per woman). Current Prime Minister, Lee Hsien Loong, in his first National Day Rally 2004, dedicated the last part of his speech to 'Babies', but the efficacy of that massive public campaign has not yet been seen because of productive efficiency – women must produce too hence they cannot afford pregnancy, further it is too expensive to have a second baby – and hence the consequent break down of the family.

Singaporeans have also been completely submerged into State-sponsored Religions, which usually bear the prefix Moderate. Religion itself, regardless of whether it is Buddhism, Christianity, Islam or Hinduism, has been confined to the places of worship or to the four walls of one's room. The Muslim heritage that comes from the old Singapura under the Johor Sultanate has been completely erased and refashioned to suit the island's Brave-New-World raison d'etre. Religion in Singapore, or Islam in particular since Singapore was initially part of a Sultanate, has gone through such methodical restructuring and censorship that it would be more appropriate to describe it as ritualism and in the case of Islam, Islamic ritualism.

The education structure in Singapore, with its student streaming system at every level – primary to tertiary – brings to mind BNW's Alphas, Gammas, Deltas and Epsilons. The young population is conditioned from a very early stage in life to move in the direction of the professions that are 'suitable' for them. Those who are groomed to be at the top control and those who are trained to be at the bottom toil.

The population of Singapore today no more reflects the people of the previous British colony let alone the people of the old Sultanate. The current population is living in what Aldous Huxley once termed Crowd Delirium. 'Everyone belongs to everyone else' and therefore the nation exists without the individual and the family. They all do what everyone else does and because of the crowd delirium that has overwhelming control over the individual and the family, the unwillingness to take part in all that is mainstream is a subtle undercurrent that is not realised until old age when one moves away from the crowd into solitude. Any traveller in Singapore who is familiar with Huxley's BNW would quite easily observe this in the early morning and evening public transport when crowds move in and out of the CBD area – that the family is broken and the people live to serve those in power. In Huxley's words, there is 'no leisure from pleasure'. In Singapore, Life is Work.

The City-State is a company and the citizens are shareholders regardless of personal choice. One fifth of the income of most citizens are deducted monthly and transferred to their CPF (Central Provident Fund) account and locked until retirement when they receive measly allowances from it over a number of years, or which may be used to pay for housing loans. This Central Provident Fund is then invested in other international projects and in financial stock exchanges. Over the past few years, the government has been distributing dividends to citizens from such investments. Contrarily, it should be termed Central Deprivative Fund for it deprives 20% of every month's labour under the pretext of investments and savings for the future. This is usury; this is Authoritarian Capitalism.

According to two BBC reports on 18 March and 15 June, with the onset of the world financial crisis, the Singapore economy suffered a great blow that has reduced its exports dramatically and has shrunk its GDP growth. Its economy is shrinking at a faster pace than at any time in its recent history, by as much as ten percent this year. Unemployment rates have shot up: 12,000 workers retrenched and 200,000 jobless foreign workers are expected to leave Singapore by the end of this year. National University of Singapore business school professor, Koh Seng Kee, correctly pointed out some time ago, "Should there be a financial or political crisis, the wealth of Singaporeans will dissipate quickly."

A new legislation entitled the Public Order Act (POA) was passed in April 2009 boosting the discretionary powers of the People's Action Party-led government, under the pretext of fighting Terrorism. It bans any outdoor activity deemed by the state as political in nature even if it is by one person unless the person has a permit from the government. It has further restricted laws on the media. The spectacular economic downturn of the country has caused much restraint on the people and the passing of the POA seems to police anyone who tries to respond or comment on the situation, including the legal political parties rival to the PAP.

Minister Mentor, Lee Kuan Yew, who has refused to step down from the government after he left the Prime Minister post in 1990, made a recent one-week visit to Malaysia last month, where he mentioned that Singapore regards the lands within the radius of 6000 miles as its hinterland. That includes Beijing and Tokyo apart from Malaysia and Indonesia. In his critical reply to this, former Prime Minister of Malaysia Dr. Mahathir quoting Lee Kuan Yew, said, "Of course this self-deluding perception places Singapore at the centre of a vast region. It is therefore the latter day Middle Kingdom (the Ancient Middle Kingdom being China). The rest are peripheral and are there to serve the interest of this somewhat tiny Middle Kingdom." Lee Kuan advised Malaysian politicians on how to run the country, the same way he is advising a delegation that has come from Tatarstan led by its Deputy Prime Minister, this very week in Singapore, on public administration. Because of this new boastful diplomacy, Dr. Mahathir called Lee Kuan Yew, with sarcasm 'the great man from the little country' and 'little Emperor'. He then continued, "(Malaysia) should not have anymore problems now. We have been told the direction to take." With the repercussions of the financial crisis, Singapore has projected to have new economic ambitions to work with Malaysia. Lee Kuan Yew's believe in the Malaysian merger and the unity of the two territories seems to have never faded.

The one-party rule, government control of businesses, structuralisation of education and economy, psychological conditioning of the population, censure of religion and the media, classification of the masses, strict penal code, and the latest passing of the POA, all bring to light the silent oppression that is hidden behind the tourist image. Singapore proves to be an excellent case study of how the greater Muslim world was purchased, divided and are today being transformed to live for the State and in extension for the world economy. The two other nations from the Sultanates of the Malay Archipelago, Malaysia and Indonesia, are moving in the direction of Brave-New-World status and Authoritarian Capitalism so that they may be embraced by the World Community, while Singapore has successfully done so. In terms of its economy, politics, society, and other factors beyond the scope of this essay like international relations and military, Singapore is the perfect model that those in control of the world would want subservient states to follow.

Source: http://www.globaliamagazine.com/?id=781

Norman RA Noordin