INTRODUCTION
Despite the immense changes the past century has wrought upon the tiny island of Singapore, natural historian William Hornaday’s succinct appraisal is as valid today as it was in 1885. Since gaining full independence from Malaysia in 1965, this absorbing city-state has been transformed from a sleepy colonial backwater into a pristine, futuristic shrine to consumerism. It is one of Southeast Asia’s most accessible destinations, its downtown areas dense with towering skyscrapers and gleaming shopping malls, while sprawling new towns with their own separate communities and well-planned facilities ring the centre. Yet visitors prepared to peer beneath the state’s squeaky-clean surface will discover a profusion of age-old buildings, values and traditions that have survived the profound social and geographical change. And the island has not been overwhelmed by development – even as you make your way in from the airport, you’ll be struck immediately by Singapore’s abundance of parks, nature reserves, and lush, tropical greenery. Inevitably, given its geographical position, the state is seen by most people as a mere stopover and, because of its size, you can gain an impression of the place in just a few hours. However, justifying a lengthier stay is easily done.
Singapore’s progress over the past three decades has been remarkable. Lacking any noteworthy natural resources, its early prosperity was based on a vigorous free trade policy, in place since 1819 when Sir Stamford Raffles first set up a British trading post here. Later, mass industrialization bolstered the economy, and today the state boasts the world’s second busiest port after Rotterdam, minimal unemployment, and a super-efficient infrastructure. Almost the entire population has been moved from unsanitary kampungs (villages) into new apartments, and the average per capita income is over US$12,000. Yet none of this was achieved without considerable compromise – indeed, the state’s detractors claim it has sold its soul in return for prosperity.
Put simply, at the core of the Singapore success story is an unwritten bargain between its government and population, which accepts the loss of a certain amount of personal freedom, in return for levels of affluence and comfort that would have seemed unimaginable thirty years ago. Former prime minister, and now senior minister, Lee Kuan Yew has gone on record as saying, "When you are hungry, when you lack basic services, freedom, human rights and democracy do not add up to much." Outsiders often bridle at these sentiments, but the population, trusting the wisdom of its leaders, seems generally content to acquiesce to a paternalistic form of government that critics describe as soft authoritarianism. Consequently, Singaporeans have earned a reputation for cowed, unquestioning subservience, a view that can be overstated, but which isn’t without an element of truth. The past has taught Singaporeans that if they follow their government’s lead, they will reap the benefits. In addition, they take a pride in their country that occasionally extends to smugness – witness the huge celebrations that accompany National Day, Singapore’s annual collective pat on the back. Yet there is good reason to be proud: Singapore is a clean, safe place to visit, its amenities are second to none, its public places smoke-free and hygienic. And as the nation’s youth (who don’t remember a time before the improvements they take for granted) begin to find a voice, public life should become increasingly, if gradually, more liberal and democratic.
Whatever the political ramifications of the state’s economic success, of more relevance to the five million annual visitors to Singapore is the fact that improvements in living conditions have been shadowed by a steady loss of the state’s heritage as historic buildings and streets are bulldozed to make way for shopping centres. Singapore undoubtedly lacks the personality of some Southeast Asian cities, but its rep