Hard Choices: Challenging the Singapore Consensus

11 The Old Normal is the New Normal

11 11 THE OLD THE OLD NORMAL IS THE NORMAL IS THE NEW NORMAL NEW NORMAL Thum Ping Tjin Between 1955 (Singapore’s first election for partial self-government ) and 1963 (Singapore’s independence from Britain), Singaporeans went to the polls an average of once a year: three general elections , four by-elections, one City Council election, and one National Referendum. Through these intensely contested, open, and fair elections , the people held the government accountable. Competing parties presented different ideas about how Singapore should be run, and the people of Singapore evidently made wise choices, for Singapore went on to enjoy unparalleled growth and development over the next few decades. Out of this period came the widely admired policies that underpinned Singapore’s prosperity for the next 40 years: housing, education, social security, and infrastructure. The Central Provident Fund (CPF) was created in 1955; David Marshall introduced Meet- the-People sessions in 1955; a flexible and open trilingual system of education came out of an All-Party Report on Education in 1956; Nanyang University—the first popularly funded university in Southeast Asia—was proposed in 1953, commenced classes in 1956, and officially opened in 1958; the Housing and Development Board (HDB) succeeded the Singapore Improvement Trust (SIT) in 1959; the Winsemius survey that led to Singapore’s industrialisation was done in 1960; the Economic Development Board (EDB) followed in 1961. Singapore’s success is derived from democracy, diversity, and dissent. But this lesson is missing in the official government narrative of history. Instead, the 1950s and 60s are characterised as a turbulent and unstable time.1 Through the People’s Action Party’s (PAP) continuous rule since 1959, it has been able to shape Singaporean history to present a specific and purposeful viewpoint.2 In portraying this period as being a time that was dangerous, rife with subversion, and when Singapore teetered on the brink of communism, it links the liberal ideas of justice and democracy with chaos and instability. The period thus serves as an instructive contrast to the relative peace and stability created by the illiberalism of successor governments. This perspective imposed by the PAP helped to justify its hold on power, meet the imperatives of nation-building, and satisfy the political realities of the Cold War. Its perspective on history is also dominated by stark political categories and is written to edify and instruct, or as apologia for the post-1965 regime. This subjective account of history, narrow and partial—and by definition incomplete—is today seen as authoritative and complete. But it leads us to incomplete and erroneous conclusions about Singapore’s past, makes us forget the lessons of Singapore’s history, and makes us lose sight of the basis of Singapore’s success. When we misapprehend the basis of Singapore’s success, we limit our understanding of the present and unnecessarily constrain our choices for the future. A careful reading of history based on the British archives and contemporary vernacular sources, however, presents a different view of Singapore’s history and demonstrates the limitations of the PAP narrative, especially cherished myths on which its principles of governance are based on—in particular, myths surrounding Singapore’s development, authoritarianism, and vulnerability. 140 THE OLD NORMAL IS THE NEW NORMAL Inequality and Discrimination By 1930, Singapore was the richest country in Asia, “outwardly one of the most prosperous cities in the British Empire.”3 It was famous then for many of the same things it remains famous for today: tall, glittering, modern buildings; massive department stores; cutting edge technology; cosmopolitanism; its multiethnic community; trade; prosperity . Jean Cocteau, stopping off on his voyage around the world, was struck by Singapore’s cleanliness, the “elegant modernity”, and how its jungles had been domesticated into neat parks, playing fields, and golf courses.4 He marvelled at the tall neoclassical buildings surrounding the Padang, luxuriated in the Raffles and Adelphi Hotel, wandered through Raffles Place and the offices and shopping centres around it.5 Another traveller, Bruce Lockhart, was struck not just by the modernity but also by the diversity. “It’s like Liverpool,” he remarked, “except that Liverpool has more Chinese.”6 The Japanese Occupation interrupted this period of success, but could not stop the indomitable spirit of the island’s occupants. Singapore quickly shrugged off the economic effects of the Occupation. By 1950, it was largely back to where it had been in 1939, once again the...