The Guardian, a British newspaper, touted the benefits of colonialism and its positive legacy on Singapore in a Jan. 4, 2018 article.

The article is titled, "Colonialism can work – just look at Singapore".

The immediate side effect following the piece's publication was that it sent many Singaporeans' eyeballs rolling into the back of their heads, eliciting the collective question: "What kind of self-conceited nonsense is this?"

Article's thesis

Unfortunately, the article didn't even have a thesis to begin with.

This is mostly because the headline is not even remotely congruent with the piece's content.

Very quickly, and in summary, this was what The Guardian article said:

• Singapore has vestigial physical remnants of its colonial past, for example, a gleaming white statue of Thomas Stamford Raffles erected in 1969 and buildings showcasing "Victorian neoclassical pomp".

• Singapore combines economic liberalism borrowed from Raffles' vision, while maintaining a politics that subordinates the individual to the collective, and efficient government.

• Singapore is where Asian cultural traditions remain intact but western know-how is harnessed to build a prosperous society.

Rest of article debunks headline

And the funny thing is: The second-half of the article completely disintegrates as it shows exactly how Singapore has shaken off its colonial hangover and come into its own.

For example, these facts include:

• Singapore was the beneficiary of the opium drug trade as the colonial administration profited from the revenue, but these days this tiny country has one of the strictest drug laws in the world.

• Singapore, after gaining independence from the British, built public housing and schools which benefited its people in a way the colonial overlords never bothered to do.

• Singapore now holds elections to choose its leaders, unlike how the British used to run things by decree.

• Besides the English language and the Westminster system Singapore inherited, the British also introduced draconian practices such as detention without trial, as well as licenses for the press, which are still used to this day because it is convenient.

Therefore, overall, the The Guardian article is more descriptive than explanatory.

The headline could have gone the other way and be tweaked to read: Colonialism didn't benefit Singapore. Singapore benefited colonialism.

Because this should be the updated narrative going into 2019, the 200-year anniversary of Sir Stamford Raffles setting foot on this country.

[related_story]

An updated narrative

Instead of asking if and how a system of governance -- be it colonialism, forceful occupation by a foreign imperial army or illiberal democracy -- had been good for Singapore, the updated narrative should be: Singapore benefits whoever runs it.

Regardless of how you cut it, in the last 700 years from 1300 to 2018, Singapore has provided for its rulers and subjects.

The sultans and princesses from kingdoms past all made good on this tiny place -- as part of a larger network of islands in a vast Southeast Asian archipelago.

The British colonialists capitalised on Singapore's strategic geography and it facilitated and materialised their maritime expansionist vision.

When the Japanese came and occupied the place for three years and eight months, they had the time of their lives too.

The relationship between the current ruling government and its people has been hunky-dory for a while now.

Why?

Singapore does not have hinterland. But we have hintersea.

Whatever the land failed to provide, the sea was harnessed to make up for the deficiency.

And mostly because small is beautiful -- or in our case, not unwieldy.

The only time Singapore runs the risk of being destabilised and running herself into the ground is when it is overrun by a kleptocratic regime whose redistribution of the spoils of good fortune is perceived to be unevenly allocated.

Otherwise, Singapore will remain good for whichever regime is in place.

Colonialists included, for sure.

Why Singapore is beautiful: