Political Pragmatism and Citizenship Training in Singapore

2013

2013

Lim Chin Siong was the undisputed political leader of the anticolonial and Malayan left-wing in Singapore until his detention without trial in 1963 ended his political career. That he had a major impact on Singapore’s decolonisation is beyond dispute – indeed, both Tunku Abdul Rahman and Lee Kuan Yew formulated their merger policy specifically in response to Lim’s politics and his values. Yet Lim remains a poorly understood figure because of a lack of sources and a historiography written almost entirely from his opponents’ perspectives. Reassessing existing literature in view of recently declassified British archives, this essay pieces together Lim’s articulation of three tenets in the political thinking that guided his tactics for social mobilisation: anticolonial unity, non-violence, and popular sovereignty. Lim put these principles into practice with great success, becoming the leader of the largest and most formative nationalist movement Singapore has ever known. Understanding Malayan nationalism in Singapore – and its successor, Singaporean nationalism – is thus impossible without understanding Lim Chin Siong.

Asian Journal of Comparative Politics, 2022

Singapore's political struggles of the 1950s and 1960s, between a Chinese-educated, workingclass left wing and a middle-class, English-educated faction, have not been completely eradicated but continue to cast a shadow over modern political developments. The moderate, Englisheducated faction achieved an important victory when it took over control of the People's Action Party (PAP) in the early 1960s. However, the surprise ascendancy of the Workers' Party (WP), under Low Thia Khiang, has seen a long-marginalized section of the Chinese-educated galvanize around a district, Hougang and Aljunied, and a Teochew-speaking charismatic but lowkey individual in Mr Low. The WP's ability to develop an enduring 'brand' over the 2006-2013 period surprised many commentators. By 2013 it had become Singapore's second-strongest political force.

A look at how Singapore's separation from Malaysia in 1965 impacted Singapore's nation building, with particular focus on its military and economic policies

2006

Using Alexander's (2001) multiculturalism framework, this paper concluded that both Malaysia and Singapore model of multiculturalism belong to the hyphenation model. Nonetheless, the slight difference in the development of ethnic communities in both countries led to a stronger ethnic over national identity in Malaysia and vice versa in Singapore. This paper explores the nuanced differences in the education system, political party formation and citizenship guidelines in both countries during the 1946-48 era that led to the differences in the construction of national identity, which has lasting impacts that can be seen today.

Comparative Sociology, 2009

The conceptualisation of Malay identity in Southeast Asia is contextual and dependent on a national as well as community definition. In Singapore, being Malay has largely been determined by both the racial category determined by the state and individual identification with the Malay-Muslim community. The suffix ‘Muslim’ reflects the absence of a religious definition for ‘Malay’, thereby requiring the use of the term Malay-Muslim to denote members of the community who are Malays and/or Muslims. Existing historical accounts of the Singapore Malay community have been more inclined to focus on individuals, political parties and organisations that have been assumed to be prime mobilisers. However, there exists number of Malay organisations, which was established before 1965 and continues to contribute to the development of the community. This paper presents the history of the Persatuan Persuratan Pemuda Pemudi Melayu (4PM) as the platform to understand how Malay identity has been negotiated in the realm of non-governmental organisations, grassroots operatives and volunteer welfare organisations. As 4PM was established in 1948, its founders and leaders had negotiated Malay identity within various context and definitions of Malayness. In doing so, this paper aims to share the realistic conception of Malay-Muslim identity and Malayness.

Journal of Policy History, 2014

In his tour of the Malay States on the east coast of the Malay peninsula in 1838, Munshi Abdullah, a Muslim scholar, described an apathetic Malay polity, where there existed "all kinds of taboos" between the ruler and the ruled and that the Malay population could not "criticise the unreasonable conduct of kings without the risk of being sentenced to death. " 1 Slightly over a hundred years later, in 1946, the Malay masses were throwing their weight against their rulers in reaction to the British-proposed Malayan Union. Th e Malays felt that the Malayan Union would eff ectively spell the end of Malay political dominance because it would grant non-Malays citizenship status, employ equal citizenship rights, and revoke Malay special status. By agreeing to the proposal, they felt, the Malay rulers had short-changed Malay political rights. 2 Reacting to the event, Ayob Abdullah, a political activist, reminded the Malay rulers of their responsibility toward the Malay masses. 3 He also urged Malays to form political organizations since "they could no longer rely on their Rajas to defend their society. " 4 Th e transformation of the Malay masses from political apathy to political activism surprised even the draft ers of the Malayan Union. Edward Gent, the main architect of the Malayan Union proposal, wrote to the State Secretary of the Colonies expressing his surprise at Malays' opposition to the Union, saying the Malays "showed considerable apprehension of any substantial admission of non-Malays to citizenship rights. " 5 What contributes to the transformation of the Malay masses from political apathy to a determined and cogent portrayal of Malay nationalism in the twentieth century? Was the show of Malay nationalism in 1946 an ad hoc