Could British Singapore last without WW2?

I recall Flocc saying once that Singapore was becoming an increasingly Anglicised place by the beginning of the Second World War, and it was the Japanese invasion which convinced the population the British couldn't protect them. If WW2 had been averted or confined to a limited European war could Singapore, and even Malaya and Malta remain British enclaves like Hong Kong?
 
I recall Flocc saying once that Singapore was becoming an increasingly Anglicised place by the beginning of the Second World War, and it was the Japanese invasion which convinced the population the British couldn't protect them. If WW2 had been averted or confined to a limited European war could Singapore, and even Malaya and Malta remain British enclaves like Hong Kong?

Once India gains independence Malaya will follow. There was a nascent drive of Malayan nationalism even before the war- what the war did was get even the Anglicised elites pissed off enough to join in the push for independence.

Singapore might have been kept without a Japanese occupation.
 
Once India gains independence Malaya will follow. There was a nascent drive of Malayan nationalism even before the war- what the war did was get even the Anglicised elites pissed off enough to join in the push for independence.

I would imagine that the nature of the independence would change substantially though. Stronger integration into the British economic system that without WW II and the American's successful destruction of it would be retained seems inevitable.

I would also imagine that this partially depends on when the PoD occurred? If it's early enough that Japanese are not funding ant-British movements, then it may take substantially longer for groups like the KMM to get organised and off the ground.

Singapore might have been kept without a Japanese occupation.

What about the rest of the Straits Settlements? I believe that they had a plurality of people who were recorded as Chinese on the censuses, so if the UK sticks to its pre-war weakly pro-Malay stance in the various Malay states, then there may be a desire on the parts of the inhabitants for staying a colony rather than being integrated.
 
I would imagine that the nature of the independence would change substantially though. Stronger integration into the British economic system that without WW II and the American's successful destruction of it would be retained seems inevitable.

I would also imagine that this partially depends on when the PoD occurred? If it's early enough that Japanese are not funding ant-British movements, then it may take substantially longer for groups like the KMM to get organised and off the ground.

That is of course true- we might be looking at self government for Malaya in the 1950s with independence in the 1960s

What about the rest of the Straits Settlements? I believe that they had a plurality of people who were recorded as Chinese on the censuses, so if the UK sticks to its pre-war weakly pro-Malay stance in the various Malay states, then there may be a desire on the parts of the inhabitants for staying a colony rather than being integrated.

Actually there was quite a lot of enthusiasm for independence along with Malaya- it was only after Independence when it became clear that Malay interests were going to take priority that enthusiasm faded.

What might be interesting is if the Straits Settlements achieve independence together. Thus you'd have the Federation of Malaysia (assuming Sarawak and Sabah join as per OTL) and the Republic of the Straits (Penang, Malacca and Singapore).
 
I recall Flocc saying once that Singapore was becoming an increasingly Anglicised place by the beginning of the Second World War, and it was the Japanese invasion which convinced the population the British couldn't protect them. If WW2 had been averted or confined to a limited European war could Singapore, and even Malaya and Malta remain British enclaves like Hong Kong?

The British remained in Malaya until 1957 until they were sure they had defeated the Communist insurgency. I think people no longer cared whether the Japanese had beaten the British in 1942.

The British left Malaya because they wanted to go.They weren't pushed out and they continued to station forces there for many years afterwards.
 
The thing is, imperialism's unethical, and the British people were coming to understand that. All liberal powers have eventually voluntarily deimperialized.

It would've been radically different without the war, though, that's for sure.

Another possibility's that a different war would've happened, say, between Communists and and an anticommunist league; people do like war.
 
The British left Malaya because they wanted to go.They weren't pushed out and they continued to station forces there for many years afterwards.

They weren't pushed because they were on the way out. The Malays weren't willing to die fighting British troops in 1955 when the British had repeatedly stated that they'd be gone as soon as the Commies were defeated, a goal the Malay's enthusiastically co-operated in. If it appears that Britain is staying put attitudes will change.
 
Top