A community of prestige a social history of the cosmopolitan elite class in colonial singapore

A COMMUNITY OF PRESTIGE:

A SOCIAL HISTORY OF THE COSMOPOLITAN ELITE

CLASS IN COLONIAL SINGAPORE










ERIK HOLMBERG

NATIONAL UNIVERSITY OF
SINGAPORE


2009







A COMMUNITY OF PRESTIGE:

A SOCIAL HISTORY OF THE COSMOPOLITAN ELITE

CLASS IN COLONIAL SINGAPORE








ERIK HOLMBERG
(M.A.), NUS

A THESIS SUBMITTED

FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF
PHILOSOPHY

DEPARTMENT OF HISTORY

NATIONAL UNIVERSITY OF SINGAPORE


2009


i
Acknowledgements

I am very grateful to the many people who helped me over the years while I was
working on my doctoral dissertation. I would like to express my heartfelt gratitude to my
very patient doctoral supervisor, Professor Tan Tai Yong; to my thesis committee
members, A/P Gregory K. Clancey and A/P Maurizio Peleggi (each of whom kindly read
drafts of my dissertation); and to the National University of Singapore for providing me
with a research scholarship. In addition, I would like to thank A/P Yong Mun Cheong for
his kindness in reading drafts of my dissertation. I am grateful to my thesis examiners,
A/P Ernest C.T. Chew, A/P John Miksic, and Professor Anthony Milner, for their
valuable feedback, and to Dr. Julian Davison, A/P Brian P. Farrell, A/P Stephen L. Keck,
A/P Albert Lau, A/P Edwin Lee, Dr. Ivan Polunin, Professor Peter Reeves, Dr. K.G.
Tregonning, Dr. Geoffrey Wade, and Professor James Francis Warren for their

encouragement and assistance over the years. I am very grateful to my fellow graduate
students who enriched my experience at NUS in various ways over the years, including
Clement Liew, James Low, Ten Leu-Jiun, Dr. Loh Kah Seng, Haydon Cherry, Dr. Diego
Musitelli, Leander Seah, Seah Bee Leng, Glenn Ang, Kelvin Koh, Ong Zhen Min, Didi
Kwartanada, Dr. Chua Ai Lin, Dr. Syed Muhd Khairudin Aljunied, Dr. Yasuko
Kobayashi, Dr. Deepa Nair, and Dr. Fang Xiaoping. Simon Monteiro kindly gave me
access to his extensive collection of historical documents relating to colonial Singapore.
The staff members of the NUS History Department General Office (Letha Kumar,
Jasmine Sim, Normah Osman, Harlizah Abd Hamid, and Diana Haron) were very helpful,
as were Susan Khoo and Daisy Seah of the FASS Dean’s Office, Sharon Cheong of the
Registrar's Office, and the staff members of the NUS Central Library. I would especially
like to thank Senior Librarian Tim Yap Fuan for all of his help. Finally, I would like to
thank my parents for their steadfast support and encouragement through the years.

ii

iii

Table of Contents

Acknowledgements
p. i

Table of Contents
p. iii

Summary
pp. v-vi

Introduction
A System of Status Symbols Shared by Asian and European Elites
pp. 1-34

Chapter One
Asian Colonial Elites and Empire-Building
pp. 35-144

Chapter Two
Concepts and Approaches:
Public Pageantry, Rituals, Icons, and Conspicuous Recreation
pp. 145-211

Chapter Three
A Cultural Explanation for Elite Integration?
pp. 213-295

Chapter Four
The Cult of Raffles:
Civil Religion and the Multiracial Elite Class in Colonial Singapore
pp. 297-385

Chapter Five
Imperial Monarchy and the Theatre of Prestige in Colonial Singapore
pp. 387-469

Conclusions and Implications
pp. 471-578

Bibliography
pp. 579-632

Appendix
Scenes of Prestige: The Built Environment and the Integration of a
Multiracial Colonial Elite Class in Colonial Singapore
pp. 633-792




iv

v

Summary

Elites of different races in colonial Singapore made social connections amongst

themselves and developed a sense of fellow membership in a cosmopolitan community of
prestige by taking part together in a system of status symbols. These elites created and
sustained their system of status symbols; and, in the absence of a shared culture, these
elites were socially integrated by their shared symbolic system, which gave cohesion to
their class. This fact is especially socially significant, given that colonial Singapore was
a multiracial and culturally diverse Settlement, where the population was divided by
cultural boundaries. Since the leading members of different sections of this population
were represented among the elites, the elite class could not base its sense of community
upon shared cultural heritage or identity. Thus, colonial Singapore presents a case which
highlights the importance of social and symbolic integration, rather than cultural, ethnic,
racial, or national foundations of elite class cohesion.
This study of the development of the multiracial elite class and its social
integration though exchanges of symbolic capital in colonial Singapore challenges what
are, perhaps, the conventional views of colonial history, especially, the emphasis on the
role of conflict in social history and the emphasis on the role of Europeans in colonialism,
an emphasis which tends to privilege the role of Europeans at the expense of non-
Europeans, regardless of whether or not the European colonial activities are viewed as
positive or negative. Instead, this study suggests an alternative approach to colonial
social history, including a focus on the active cooperation of Asian and European elites



vi


as partners in colonialism, as a crucial dynamic in colonial history; Asian elites eagerly
cooperated as the partners of their European fellow elites, rather than merely being co-
opted as subordinates. This study emphasises multiracial elite class identity and
organisation, including the important role of the creation, sharing, and exchange of
symbolic capital among Asian and European elites in the creation of the social capital and

cohesion of their cosmopolitan elite class; and an appreciation of the crucial role of Asian
elites as the partners of European elites in colonial history and empire-building. The
colonial system (at least in Singapore and its Malayan hinterland) is seen as the outcome
of a mutually-beneficial joint enterprise or alliance between Asian and European elites, a
pattern of close multiethnic and multiracial cooperation which lasted for nearly one and a
half centuries and created at least as many opulent Asian plutocrats as European tycoons.
Introduction

1
Introduction: A System of Status Symbols Shared by Asian and European Elites
Elites of different races in colonial Singapore made social connections amongst
themselves and developed a sense of fellow membership in a cosmopolitan community of
prestige by taking part together in a system of status symbols. These elites created and
sustained their system of status symbols; and, in the absence of a shared culture, these
elites were socially integrated by their shared symbolic system, which gave cohesion to
their class. This fact is especially socially significant, given that colonial Singapore was
a multiracial and culturally diverse Settlement, where the population was divided by
cultural boundaries. Since the leading members of different sections of this population
were represented among the elites, the elite class could not base its sense of community
upon shared cultural heritage or identity. Thus, colonial Singapore presents a case which
highlights the importance of social and symbolic integration, rather than cultural, ethnic,
racial, or national foundations of elite class cohesion.
The cultural differences among these elites were not really barriers to the extent
that we might now imagine them to have been; in fact, the cultural boundaries were quite
permeable and susceptible to being overcome and surmounted by central social bridges
that were built upon the shared recognition of prestige and face, and the mutual
participation of Asian and European elites in the colonial system of status symbols. The
concept of society is not necessarily coterminous with culture; the population of a single
society may include several sections, each belonging to a different cultural identity, yet
linked to one another within a single social structure. Such was the society of colonial

Singapore, and this study is concerned with an exploration of the symbolic ties with
Introduction

2
linked the elites of different cultures into one community of prestige at the summit of this
culturally diverse society.
Asian and European elites bridged the cultural differences among themselves –
the distinctions that were due to their differences in background, heritage, ethnicity, and
nationality – by participating together in the colonial system of status symbols, a system
which integrated them socially and symbolically into a multiracial elite social class.
Whatever the cultural distance between them, their shared recognition, consumption, and
control of prestigious status symbols clearly affirmed their social proximity as fellow
elite stakeholders, partners, and allies in their colonial system, while distinguishing them
as an elite social class and setting them apart from non-elites. Major categories of
symbols within this symbolic system included the symbols linked respectively to the
British monarchy, the local cityscape, and the name of Sir Stamford Raffles, the founder
of the Settlement of Singapore. These elites of different races shared in the ownership of
their colonial society’s prestigious symbols, traditions, history, and heritage, and ensured
that these social resources were reproduced and handed on to their successors throughout
the colonial era, from 1819 to 1959.
The mutually beneficial partnership of Asian elites and their European fellow
elites – through their participation together in the colonial economic, social, and symbolic
systems – was at the heart of colonial Singapore. This was the central dynamic around
which revolved the history of the Settlement. By cooperating in creating, enhancing, and
sustaining this symbolic system, in the investment of these symbols with social meaning,
and in the distribution of the rewards of this system amongst themselves, Asian and
European elites fostered the representation of colonial Singapore as having a single
Introduction

3

multiracial social structure, in spite of its ethnic and racial diversity, and they asserted a
vision of social reality in which both Asian and European elites alike were located at the
centre of this diverse society. They presented a public image of elites of different races
cooperating closely within the colonial system to their mutual benefit, and enjoying the
rich material and symbolic rewards which flowed from their close partnership.
While the colonial elites of different races enhanced their own individual status on
a personal level, they contributed to the organisation and stratification of their society on
the basis of social class or status identity, rather than racial identity. The social structures
and public representations at the summit level of the society of colonial Singapore
emphasised the fellowship of Asian and European elites in their shared social distinctions
of status and prestige, at least as much as the social boundaries implied by their cultural
differences. The elite social institutions, rituals, symbols, and patterns of interactions
which prevailed among Asian and European elites fostered their mutual recognition of
one another as fellow insiders in terms of elite social status, rather than as outsiders or
others in cultural or racial terms. The social integration of Asian elites into the colonial
elite social class, and their cooperation in shaping and perpetuating their social structure,
paralleled and complemented their economic integration and cooperation in the colonial
economic system, a system within which the leading Asian elites in colonial Singapore
became clearly the wealthiest inhabitants of this island, building vast family fortunes to
be inherited by their descendants and which, in some cases, are still enjoyed by their heirs
to this day.
Asian elites in colonial Singapore formally bought into the colonial system of
status symbols by accepting this system’s status rewards, including imperial honours
Introduction

4
(such as knighthoods and orders of chivalry), invitations to social functions where they
met Governors and visiting royalty, opportunities to take part in imperial celebrations,
and appointments to prestigious local ranks, titles, and offices, as Justices of the Peace,
Grand Jurors, Municipal Commissioners, Legislative Councillors, commissioned officers

with the Chinese, Eurasian, and Malay Volunteer Companies, and members of
committees that organised local imperial celebrations and received royal visitors. These
symbolic transactions were inherently reciprocal; they were, in fact, exchanges of
symbolic capital. By accepting colonial honours, Asian elites not only received symbolic
capital, but also returned the favour, by implicitly affirming their acceptance of the
authority and legitimacy of the colonial system, and providing an example for other
Asian elites to follow – indeed, generations of Asian elites bought into the colonial
system. They thus became both beneficiaries and investors in the colonial social and
symbolic system, deriving symbolic benefits from it while contributing to the social value
of its symbols at the same time.
By buying into the colonial system, Asian elites became key stakeholders in
imperialism and leading beneficiaries of colonialism, who enjoyed rich economic and
symbolic dividends from colonial development, in partnership with their Western
colleagues in empire-building. By buying into the symbolic aspect of this colonial
system – the system of status symbols – these Asian elites effected their social integration
into the cosmopolitan elite class and located themselves within the social space at the
centre of the colonial society, in much the same way that they bought into the economic
aspects of the system by participating in the economy. These Asian and European
colonial elites, partners and colleagues in an interracial joint enterprise of imperialism,
Introduction

5
needed to work with each other in order to achieve their goals. Their exchange of
symbolic capital cemented the networks of social ties, which integrated them into a social
class or community of prestige.
Any inquiry into the nature of the colonial past of Asian lands is likely to raise
what is, perhaps, the most obvious question about colonialism, in which Asian lands were
supposedly dominated by relatively small numbers of Europeans who were stationed far
from their homelands. This question is: How was it that these ostensibly European
colonies managed to function for many years, despite the vast numerical superiority of

the Asian population to the Europeans? In other words, how could so-called European
colonies exist and survive, when there were so few Europeans in them?
1
Many of the leading protagonists and beneficiaries of colonialism in Asia were
Asian colonial elites, who cooperated closely with their fellow elites from the West.
The presence
and power of European imperial armed forces, while an important factor, is insufficient
to explain this remarkable phenomenon, which linked East and West, and brought about
increasing interaction and mutual influence between the cultures of Asia and Europe.
The answer or answers to this question cannot be reduced simply to a discussion of the
preponderance of Western naval and military power; indeed, the investigation of this
topic may lead to the conclusion that examples of supposedly European colonialism
were, perhaps, actually more Asian than they might seem at first glance, or at least than
the ways in which colonialism has often been depicted and represented in historical and
popular imaginations.

1
See: D.A. Low, Lion Rampant: Essays in the Study of British Imperialism, p. 8. Ian Copland quoted
D.A. Low in: The Burden of Empire: Perspectives on Imperialism and Colonialism, pp. 85-86. I am
grateful to my doctoral supervisor, Associate Professor Tan Tai Yong for bringing this book to my
attention.
Introduction

6
Asian and Western colonial elites needed each other in order to succeed economically
and symbolically in their colonial joint venture. The participation of Asian elites, and
their cooperation with European elites, was integral to so-called Western colonialism, and
Asian elites achieved a high degree of economic and social success within European
empires. The central role and remarkable success of Asian elites within colonialism
deserves recognition, which will foster an appreciation of the degree of historical

continuity from colonial times to the present, as the descendants and successors of Asian
colonial elites have continued to thrive in the globalised post-colonial world.
An exploration of the longevity of this so-called European colonialism leads to a
consideration of the nature of the relationships, connections, and interactions between
Asians and Europeans in colonial settings, and most especially those cooperative
interactions which developed between Asian colonial elites and their European fellow
elites. The character and development of colonial systems in Asia were closely related –
if not entirely the products of – the cooperative and complementary relationship between
Asian elites and their European fellow elites. To understand this relationship, we must
consider what interests these elites shared in common, as well as the methods by which
they initiated and sustained their cooperative interconnections. Although economic
factors and relationships were certainly crucial, lucrative colonial economic transactions
and partnerships occurred within an elite-level social context. This study is concerned
with the development and nature of the network of social connections which formed this
context. While there were most likely many parallels between elite-level interracial
interactions in various colonial settings at different points in time, which would require
the scholarly work of many lifetimes to survey, the present study is concerned with just
Introduction

7
one place, the Southeast Asian colonial port city of Singapore, where the colonial era
lasted for one hundred and forty years, from 1819 to 1959.
Asian and European elites in colonial Singapore shared interests in status and
prestige or symbolic capital, and these shared interests activated their social integration
into a multiethnic elite class in this colonial port city, transcending distinctions between
racial and ethnic categories at the summit level and centre of this ethnically diverse
society. Although Singapore was governed under European authority from 1819 to 1942
and from 1945 to 1959, most of the wealthy and socially prominent elites who resided in
Singapore during those years were actually Asians, most of whom were Chinese. Asian
and European elites here derived social and symbolic benefits, as well as economic and

political rewards, from their cooperative relationship, an elite-level partnership which
was essential to the colonial system. Singapore was colonised at least as much by Asian
elites as by European elites, as they worked together to develop this colonial port city,
and both enjoyed the rich rewards of their cooperation within the colonial system, in
terms of economic, social, and symbolic capital; they had to work closely together to
acquire these rewards. Asian and European elites alike were located together at the
centre of the colonial society in Singapore, as well as at the summit levels of the
economic and political systems; and the colonial system here belonged as much to the
leading local Asians as to their European fellow elites.
Asian Elites as Forgotten People?
Living in Singapore in the early twenty-first century, one gets the impression that,
insofar as the society of colonial Singapore is remembered at all today, it tends to be
viewed as a society of a mass of impoverished Asians (such as rickshaw pullers) and a
Introduction

8
small group of privileged Europeans, with, perhaps, a sprinkling of a few wealthy
Chinese philanthropists. In fact, while it is certainly true that there was a mass of Asian
workers such as rickshaw pullers, there was also a large and prosperous Asian
population, including wealthy and middle-class families. These prosperous Asians
included not only Chinese, but also Arabs, Armenians, Eurasians, Indians, Jews, Malays,
and Parsis, and the richest among them were evidently richer than any of the Europeans
here. A substantial number of these prosperous Asians (and especially the leading Asian
elites) socialised with their European fellow elites, belonged to the same or similar
prestigious organisations, received the same types of colonial honours, and participated in
the same colonial public rituals and celebrations.
Although it may seem somewhat strange to refer to elites as forgotten people, it
may well be that the Asian elites of colonial Singapore have been largely (if not entirely)
forgotten, in terms of the prominence which they enjoyed within the colonial society, and
their economic cooperation and social integration with their European fellow elites.

2

2
Regarding forgotten people of the colonial era (including compradores), see: T.N. Harper, “ ‘Asian
Values’ and Southeast Asian Histories,” The Historical Journal, Volume 40, Number 2 (June 1997), p.
513. I am grateful to Syed Muhd Khairudin Aljunied for kindly bringing this article to my attention. Chua
Ai Lin has argued that more attention needs to be given to the English-speaking Asians of colonial
Singapore. Chua Ai Lin, “Negotiating National Identity: The English-Speaking Domiciled Communities
in Singapore, 1930-1941,” M.A. thesis, Department of History, National University of Singapore, 2001, pp.
5 and 138-139.

Could it be that Singaporeans today are somewhat reluctant to remember the Asian
colonial elites, or that there were class divisions within the Asian population? Perhaps it
is more fashionable to remember those Asians who struggled within or against the
colonial system, rather than the Asian elites benefited from colonialism. When wealthy
Asians of the colonial era are remembered, there may be a tendency to emphasise the
generous charitable activities and community leadership roles of some of these men, or
Introduction

9
the fact that some of them were self-made millionaires – rather than noting the fact that
many wealthy Asians revelled in luxurious lifestyles of ostentatious opulence, while
eagerly enjoying prominence and prestige within the colonial system and endeavouring to
establish their families as local dynasties.
To remember the roles and achievements of Asian elites in the colonial system
involves not only remembering their cooperation with European elites and their major
stakeholdership within the colonial system, but also the highlighting of the class
stratification within the Asian population of Singapore; this, in turn, might lead to an
appreciation of elements of continuity in the social structure between the colonial and
post-colonial eras, and even of the fact that at least some of the colonial-era elite Asian

families maintained their elite status well into the post-colonial era. These social facts
may be somewhat unpalatable for some people today; however, they should not be at all
surprising, since such themes of social continuity and class stratification are likely to be
found around the world. The general continuity of social structures across time,
including class stratification and the inheritance of wealth and status, may be regarded as
normal, in societies past and present around the world; and societies are divided as much
by distinctions of economic and social class as they are by racial and cultural identities.
Writers in formerly colonised lands may quite naturally wish to downplay the
reality of class differences within their own nations, in the past as well as in the present,
and instead imagine their colonial-era societies as having been united in proto-nationalist
struggle against colonialism. Such an image would be promoted by a depiction of the
colonial elite class as having been mostly (if not entirely) comprised of Westerners, and
applying the terms colonialist and imperialist only to Europeans, despite the fact that so
Introduction

10
many of the wealthy elites in colonised countries were non-Europeans. This study,
however, suggests a very different understanding of both colonialism and colonialists: a
realisation that colonialism in Singapore and its Malayan hinterland was at least as much
Asian as it was European,
3
Evidence suggesting that Chinese and other Asians are much less likely to be
perceived as colonialists than Westerners may be found through Google searches of the
Internet, as well as through consultation of JSTOR, an archive of scholarly journals. The
mentions of colonialists found in JSTOR may reflect scholarly perceptions, while the
findings of a Google search could reflect more general popular perceptions. Here are the
results of a search for different types of colonialists in Google and JSTOR in late 2007:
that Asian elites were among the leading stakeholders in this
system, and that the Asian and European colonial elites were socially integrated through
their participation together in the same symbolic system involving the symbolic issues of

status and prestige – the symbolic rewards which were desired by Asian and Western
elites alike. The role of Asian elites as successful partners and stakeholders in
colonialism should be duly appreciated, and this leads to recognition of the fact that
colonialism could take the form of a multiracial and mutually-beneficial partnership or
joint venture of Asian and European elites, in which Asian and European elites were
linked together not only through their cooperative participation in the same colonial
economic system, but also through their participation together in the colonial social
structure and its system of status symbols.

3
This may have been true in other Asian lands as well. For example, see the description of the prominent
role of Arabs and Chinese in the Dutch East Indies, in: J. Macmillan Brown, The Dutch East: Sketches
and Pictures (1914), pp. 149-159. Regarding Asian capital in the colonial era, see: Rajat Kanta Ray,
“Asian Capital in the Age of European Domination: The Rise of the Bazaar, 1800-1914,” Modern Asian
Studies, Volume 29, Number 3 (July 1995), pp. 449-554. Regarding Chinese as colonizers in colonial
Hong Kong, see: John M. Carroll, Edge of Empires: Chinese Elites and British Colonials in Hong Kong,
p. 18. I am grateful to NUS Central Library Senior Librarian Tim Yap Fuan for kindly bringing this book
to my attention.
Introduction

11



colonialists

JSTOR

Google
Singapore

Google
Malaysia

Google
world-
wide
Asian colonialists
0
0
2
41
Chinese colonialists
1
0
0
201
Italian colonialists
18
2
0
1,460
German colonialists
32
2
0
2,080
Japanese colonialists
20
7
1

2,190
Belgian colonialists
22
1
0
2,510
American colonialists
42
3
3
2,930
Portuguese colonialists
69
9
3
3,680
Dutch colonialists
47
63
36
5,030
Western colonialists
45
20
44
5,360
Spanish colonialists
25
5
5

8,870
French colonialists
169
100
14
20,200
European colonialists
173
38
35
20,600
British colonialists
207
228
398
31,000


These numbers may indicate that popular perceptions of the relative
representation of different nationalities among colonialists, that is, the perceived
population, so to speak, of colonialists as depicted online, lean towards the perception
that colonialists were generally Europeans (especially British) or Japanese, but rarely
Asian or Chinese. According to these popular perceptions as revealed on the Internet,
colonialists are (or were) over 150 times more likely to be British than to be Chinese,
despite the fact that the Chinese Empire was already thriving when Britain was still a
colony of the Roman Empire. These numbers may suggest that the great successes
enjoyed by ancient Asian imperialists have been largely forgotten in the popular
perception, or at least that much greater attention is given to the activities of more recent
Western imperialists. It would seem that the role of Asians as colonialists – whether in
Asian empires or within Western empires – has been largely overlooked; and while there

Introduction

12
has been some acknowledgement of the role of Japanese as colonialists, both Google and
JSTOR suggest that even Belgium is perceived as having produced more colonialists than
Japan, despite the fact that the Japanese Empire colonised Taiwan, Korea, and
Manchuria, and briefly occupied much of China and Southeast Asia.
The evidence from the Internet suggests that Asians are not generally perceived as
colonialists, with the notable exception of the Japanese; and, moreover, that aside from
the Japanese, the role of colonialist is almost exclusively associated with Westerners.
From an historical perspective, this seems rather ironic, considering that many non-
Western peoples were very successful in their imperial and colonial endeavours. The
Chinese, Assyrian, Persian, and Aztec, Inca, and Majapahit Empires are a few examples
of non-Western empires. Even some European countries were subjected to colonial rule
by non-Western imperialists: invaders from northern Africa conquered and colonised
Spain in the eighth century, and Ottoman imperialists invaded and colonised Greece and
the Balkan Peninsula in the fifteenth century. Clearly, a variety of non-Western peoples
have played prominent roles in the history of empire-building and colonisation in
different areas of the world, and any account of imperialism and colonialism should give
due regard to non-Western as well as Western imperialists.
The Internet evidence suggests that there may be a real reluctance to see non-
Japanese Asians in the role of colonialists. The apparent perception of the term
colonialist as applying almost exclusively to Westerners would seem to deny recognition
to any significant role for Asian elites within European colonial empires. But, was Asian
agency within colonialism really as insignificant as might be suggested by the numbers
from the Google and JSTOR searches? Historical evidence from colonial Singapore
Introduction

13
suggests that Asian colonial elites actually played a very prominent and active role in

imperial developments. Their activities could suggest that their wholehearted support for
colonialism and imperialism resulted from rational considerations, because they felt that
supporting the Empire clearly served their own interests, symbolically as well as
financially.
Were Asian Elites Actually Imperialists and Colonialists?
This study will consider the question of whether or not some Asians not only
participated actively in colonialism and imperialism, but were also enthusiastic and
highly-successful imperialists and colonialists in their own right, in close cooperation
with their Western fellow colonial elites. How successful were Asian elites within the
context of Western colonialism? To what extent can Western colonialism be seen as an
accomplishment of Asian elites? This consideration may lead to the accordance of due
recognition to Asian colonial elites, by appreciating the extent to which these Asian elites
were located at the centre of the colonial system, as active protagonists and major
stakeholders in colonialism, symbolically and socially, as well as economically.
History provides us with examples of Asian elites who clearly sympathised with
Western imperialism. Colonel (later General Sir) Orfeur Cavenagh, who became
Governor of the Straits Settlements in 1859, recalled that Hoo Ah Kay Whampoa, a
prominent Cantonese businessman in Singapore, advised him on how the British could
most effectively use military force to compel the Manchu imperial government of China
to agree to British terms to end the Second Opium War, since Whampoa felt that it was
useless to attempt to negotiate with the Manchu authorities. Governor Cavenagh passed
Whampoa’s advice along to Lord Elgin, the British High Commissioner and
Introduction

14
Plenipotentiary in China.
4
This was around the time that European forces destroyed the
Yüan-ming Yüan, the Manchu Emperor’s Summer Palace. Given that this was also the
time of the Taiping Rebellion, perhaps it should be no surprise that an immigrant from

southern China would have no sympathy for China’s Manchu imperial rulers!
5
Hoo Ah
Kay Whampoa also supported the deployment of European soldiers to intimidate riotous
elements among the Chinese population in Singapore, as he explained after an outbreak
of Chinese rioting on this island in 1872.
6
The colonial authorities in Singapore were
very grateful to Whampoa for all of his support and assistance over the years, and Queen
Victoria honoured Whampoa by appointing him to be the first Chinese Member of the
Legislative Council of the Straits Settlements in 1869.
7
In 1876, Queen Victoria
appointed Whampoa a Companion of the Most Distinguished Order of Saint Michael and
Saint George, or CMG, and Governor Jervois invested Whampoa with the insignia of the
Order in a grand ceremony at the Singapore Town Hall that was attended by a crowd of
local Asian and European elites, including Maharajah Abu Bakar of Johore.
8
Meanwhile, in 1873, many Chinese merchants in Singapore, including Tan Kim
Cheng, Hoo Ah Kay Whampoa, Tan Beng Swee, and Tan Seng Poh, petitioned Queen
Victoria to bring order to the turbulent Malay States and protect the interests of the
Singapore Chinese merchants; they were joined in their petition by many Chinese
merchants of Malacca and Penang.

9

4
General Sir Orfeur Cavenagh, Reminiscences of an Indian Official, pp. 283-284.
In the following year, the imperial authorities
appointed the first British Residents in Perak, Selangor, and Negri Sembilan, thus

5
See: C.M. Turnbull, The Straits Settlements, pp. 128-129.
6
Edwin Lee, The British as Rulers: Governing Multiracial Singapore 1867-1914, p. 52, quoting a report
of a commission on the riots of October 1872 in CO 273 / 65.
7
Straits Settlements Government Gazette, No. 52, 24 December 1869, p. 774, Government Notification No.
249.
8
Straits Times, 13 May 1876, p. 2, NUS Central Library microfilm reel R0016425.
9
Colonial Office Files CO 273, Volume 67, Number 8641, Despatch 188, pp. 316-332.
Introduction

15
extending imperial influence into the Malay States through the Residential system and
securing Singapore’s Malayan hinterland,
10
where Chinese entrepreneurs would amass
vast fortunes from tin mines, rubber plantations, and the sale of opium to their own
Chinese workers.
11
In the nineteenth century, Chinese opium merchants in Singapore (who were
known as opium farmers) accumulated enormous wealth by profiting from the sale of this
highly-addictive drug to their fellow Chinese,

12
in much the same way that multinational
corporations and governments around the world today profit from the sale of highly
addictive and poisonous cigarettes. One of the leading opium merchants in Singapore in

the nineteenth century was Cheang Hong Lim, who was also a major landowner, a
generous philanthropist, and a Justice of the Peace,
13
whose name is commemorated in
Hong Lim Green, a park which resulted from his generosity and public spirit.
14
In 1889,
Cheang Hong Lim donated funds to help pay for a battery of four Maxim machine guns
for the Singapore Volunteer Artillery.
15
The Maxim guns arrived in Singapore in 1891.
16

10
Anthony Webster, Gentlemen Capitalists: British Imperialism in South East Asia 1770-1890, pp. 187-
188.

These formidable weapons – which had been developed only in the mid-1880s – would
be available to be used by the Singapore Volunteer soldiers to deal with Chinese rioters
in a most effective and final manner, or, indeed, with anyone else who dared to threaten
the colonial system, a system which included and protected the highly lucrative business
11
John Butcher, “Loke Yew,” in: John Butcher and Howard Dick, editors, The Rise and Fall of Revenue
Farming: Business Elites and the Emergence of the Modern State in Southeast Asia, pp. 255-260.
12
Carl A Trocki, Opium and Empire: Chinese Society in Colonial Singapore, 1800 – 1910.
13
Sir Ong Siang Song, One Hundred Years’ History of the Chinese in Singapore, pp. 168-170.
14
Straits Times, 19 August 1876, no page number, NUS Central Library microfilm reel R0016425.

15
Colonial Office Files CO 273, Volume 160, Number 13757, Despatch 276, from Governor Sir Cecil
Clementi Smith to Lord Knutsford, dated 7 June 1889.
16
Lieutenant-Colonel G.A. Derrick, “Singapore Volunteers,” in: Walter Makepeace et al., eds., One
Hundred Years of Singapore, Volume One, pp. 386-387.

Introduction

16
interests of many Asian businessmen, including the rich opium merchant Cheang Hong
Lim, J.P. The Chinese company of the Singapore Volunteer Corps was established in
1901 at the request of some of the leading local Chinese,
17
and prominent Singapore
Chinese served as Volunteers until the Japanese conquered Singapore in 1942, when the
Chinese Volunteers demonstrated their loyalty to their King and their Empire in the face
of an overwhelming invasion.
18
Clearly, some – if not all – of the leading Chinese elites in colonial Singapore
were firmly on the side of the so-called Western colonialism and imperialism. The
business interests of these wealthy Chinese were closely tied to the interests of their
European fellow elites. The Honourable Legislative Councillor Hoo Ah Kay Whampoa,
CMG, Justice of the Peace Cheang Hong Lim, and many other Chinese elites in colonial
Singapore, as well as other local Asian elites, made it quite clear to everyone by their
public activities and acceptance of imperial honours that they were on the side of the
British Empire and the colonial system – as, indeed, the nature of their interests really
made it their Empire and their colonial system, as much as it was anyone’s.

19

The very real shared interests of Asian and European elites in the success of
colonialism and imperialism evidently won out over any imaginary sense of racial or
cultural solidarity. Asian support for the British Empire was not limited to Chinese elites.
Sultan Abu Bakar of Johore and his son, Sultan Ibrahim, were both loyal supporters of
the Empire. Sultan Abu Bakar donated funds for the Maxim guns for the Singapore


17
Sir Ong Siang Song, One Hundred Years’ History, pp. 195, 236, 327-328, and 415.
18
Yap Pheng Geck, Scholar, Banker, Gentleman Soldier: The Reminiscences of Dr. Yap Pheng Geck, pp.
43-48.
19
See a European visitor’s first-hand observations of Singapore Chinese in 1894, in: Henry Norman, The
Peoples and Politics of The Far East (Sixth Impression, 1901), p. 42.
Introduction

17
Volunteers in 1889,
20
along with members of the Arab, Chinese, Indian, and Malay
communities.
21
Eurasians and Malays served as Volunteer soldiers in the early decades
of the twentieth century;
22
together with the Chinese and European Volunteers, they
trained to fight in defence of their British Empire. Sultan Ibrahim of Johore personally
commanded the Johore Military Forces during the suppression of a mutiny of Indian
soldiers in Singapore in 1915.

23
Sultan Ibrahim donated ₤500,000 for Singapore defence
preparations in 1935; this donation was used to provide two fifteen-inch guns at Tanah
Merah, and for the construction of airfields at Tengah and Sembawang.
24
It should be stressed that this study does not presume to make value judgements
about colonialism, but instead strives toward an objective and detached perspective. The
following pages will offer neither condemnation nor praise for colonialism. Whether or
not this study should be interpreted as evidence for an indictment of the complicity of
Asian elites in colonialism and imperialism, or as praise for the achievements of
These were the
contributions of Asian elites to a colonial and imperial system of which these non-
Western elites were leading stakeholders and beneficiaries, on a par with their Western
fellow elites. It was a colonial system in which many Asian elites evidently took great
pride in playing prominent roles, and one from which they derived enormous material
and symbolic rewards.

20
Colonial Office Files CO 273, Volume 160, Number 13757, Despatch 276, from Governor Sir Cecil
Clementi Smith to Lord Knutsford, dated 7 June 1889.
21
Chiang Ming Shun, “The Weakest go to the Wall: From Money to Mutiny 1892-1918,” in: Malcolm
Murfett et al., Between Two Oceans, p. 123.
22
A.H. Carlos, “Eurasian Volunteers,” in: Makepeace et al, One Hundred Years of Singapore, Volume
One, pp. 392-394; Wan Meng Hao, “Malay Soldiering in Singapore, 1910-1942,” in: Khoo Kay Kim et al,
Malays / Muslims in Singapore, pp. 183-219.
23
Chiang Ming Shun, “The Weakest go to the Wall: From Money to Mutiny 1892-1918,” in: Malcolm
Murfett et al., Between Two Oceans, p. 131.

24
Malcolm H. Murfett, “A Keystone of Imperial Defence or a Millstone around Britain’s Neck? Singapore
1919-1941,” In: Malcolm H. Murfett et al., Between Two Oceans, p. 164.