WI: Malaysia had kept Singapore?

[The_Persian_Cat]

Singapore was once part of Malaysia, but was expelled in 1964. There are several reasons behind this, including differences between the local government in Singapore and the central government in Kuala Lumpur; a bit of postcolonial/Cold War proxy politics; and ethnic, religious, and cultural tensions between the Singaporean Chinese and Muslim ethnic Malays.

At the time, many in Malaysia considered Singapore an economic burden; but after independence, Singapore was able to become one of the most important financial centres in the world. The Singaporean model of development would inspire many others -- including China, who under Deng Xiaoping imitated Singapore's model of central planning working closely with private capital.

But what if Malaysia had not expelled Singapore? What if Singapore was not able to pursue its own development path independent of Malaysia?

Also, everyone here more familiar with Southeast Asian history -- was there an ethnic exchange or migration between Singapore and Malaysia? Were Chinese in Malaysia or Muslims in Singapore forced to move to the other country (like in the Partition of India and Pakistan, or the population exchanges between Greece and Turkey)? Was there a large population of Muslim refugees from Singapore, or Chinese refugeese from Malaysia? I don't know, and my light googling hasn't immediately given me an answer. I do know that both Malaysia and Singapore are very racially diverse, and that there's still a large Chinese minority in Malaysia and a large Muslim minority in Singapore. Both governments have taken official steps to protect minority interests. However, I also know that the Malay government has had several official Islamisation campaigns, and the Singaporean government has had campaigns to encourage education in English and Mandarin Chinese (and marginalised the Malay and Tamil-speaking communities), while simultaneously granting Malay and Tamil protected status.

 

[Zardust]

Singapore was once part of Malaysia, but was expelled in 1964. There are several reasons behind this, including differences between the local government in Singapore and the central government in Kuala Lumpur; a bit of postcolonial/Cold War proxy politics; and ethnic, religious, and cultural tensions between the Singaporean Chinese and Muslim ethnic Malays.

At the time, many in Malaysia considered Singapore an economic burden; but after independence, Singapore was able to become one of the most important financial centres in the world. The Singaporean model of development would inspire many others -- including China, who under Deng Xiaoping imitated Singapore's model of central planning working closely with private capital.

But what if Malaysia had not expelled Singapore? What if Singapore was not able to pursue its own development path independent of Malaysia?

In all likelihood, Singapore would have not experienced its rapid economic growth. It opened itself to the world markets partly because as a small city state devoid of any natural resources, it had no choice unless it wanted to starve. Joined to a larger Malaysia, it would have been able to draw on the resources of the rest of the country and might not have needed to so fully embrace free trade as it did.

 

[Carter I'm Yog]

IIRC, in the 1960s the greater Malay area has around 42% of the population being of Chinese descent. IOTL, the ethnic tensions were released by the independence of Singapore. If Singapore does not become independent, we may see more Black days of the week if another alternative is not proposed. I think I read this TL somewhere with peninsular Malaysia becoming a Soviet proxy and everything else propped up by the USA, governed by Lee Kuan-Yew.

 

[Riain]

I once read that the expulsion of Singapore from Malaysia was one of the key drivers for Britain deciding to give up the East of Suez role, that without this they would likely have stayed far longer than they did IOTL.

 

[Remitonov]

I admit, my answer will probably be a bit biased, as a Singaporean, and someone like @Flocculencio can probably answer it better than me, but here's my take:

Singapore was once part of Malaysia, but was expelled in 1964.

Singapore was expelled in 1965, but that's a minor detail.

There are several reasons behind this, including differences between the local government in Singapore and the central government in Kuala Lumpur; a bit of postcolonial/Cold War proxy politics; and ethnic, religious, and cultural tensions between the Singaporean Chinese and Muslim ethnic Malays.

To clarify a bit on the context, the merger agreement signed between the PAP government in Singapore and the UMNO-led Alliance government (precursor to Barisan Nasional) in Malaya granted Singapore considerably more autonomy compared to the other states of Malaysia. In exchange for reduced representation in the federal government, Singapore was allowed to maintain independent control over its education and labour. Only control over defence, foreign relations and interior security (e.g. police) was handed over to the federal government. Moreover, parties from both sides are not allowed to compete in elections held on the other side of the straits (i.e. No Singaporean parties contesting in the federal elections, and no Malaysian parties in the Singapore state elections). But the situation got worse from there once UMNO contested in Singapore state elections against this clause. Coupled with the aforementioned ethnic, religious and cultural tensions, covert attacks by Indonesia over Malaysia's merger with Sarawak and Sabah, and PAP's subsequent decision to contest in federal elections and outright challenge to Malay-Muslim-centric federal policy only added fuel to the fire.

At the time, many in Malaysia considered Singapore an economic burden; but after independence, Singapore was able to become one of the most important financial centres in the world. The Singaporean model of development would inspire many others -- including China, who under Deng Xiaoping imitated Singapore's model of central planning working closely with private capital.

It's more of the opposite actually. Malaysia actually considered Singapore an economic rival rather than a burden, and the federal government feared that the national economy will be dominated by it.

Also, everyone here more familiar with Southeast Asian history -- was there an ethnic exchange or migration between Singapore and Malaysia? Were Chinese in Malaysia or Muslims in Singapore forced to move to the other country (like in the Partition of India and Pakistan, or the population exchanges between Greece and Turkey)? Was there a large population of Muslim refugees from Singapore, or Chinese refugeese from Malaysia? I don't know, and my light googling hasn't immediately given me an answer. I do know that both Malaysia and Singapore are very racially diverse, and that there's still a large Chinese minority in Malaysia and a large Muslim minority in Singapore.

No, not at all. While there's probably some migrations along the straits, it's mostly for personal or economic reasons. Many Singaporeans of all racial backgrounds have relatives on the other side of the straits, myself included. And while Malaysia defines its national identity along ethnic and religious lines (namely Malay Muslim), it also embraces multiculturalism to an extent, so long as the Malays do not feel threatened with the loss of their prime position in Malaysian society. Such national policies have grave problems, yes, but it's still far from the horror shows that accompanied the Greco-Turkish population exchange or the Partition of India.

As for Singapore, it has an overwhelming Chinese majority, and much of the political, economic and social spheres is dominated by it by virtue of numbers alone. That much is true. But Singapore is first and foremost, multicultural. No race is above any other under the constitution, and at most, recognition is given to the Malays as the native inhabitants of the region, with the national language being Malay, and administrative and common language being English.

...and the Singaporean government has had campaigns to encourage education in English and Mandarin Chinese (and marginalised the Malay and Tamil-speaking communities), while simultaneously granting Malay and Tamil protected status.

I've no idea where you got that idea, but that's not true. All education in Singapore uses English as the medium, save for mother tongue language lessons, which are taught in the student's mother tongue (e.g. Mandarin, Malay or Tamil). Ironically, one can argue that it is the Chinese community that is marginalized (which is still a stretch, by all means), because almost none of them spoke Mandarin prior to its implementation, but rather, a variety of southern Chinese dialects like Hokkien, Cantonese or Hakka. Mandarin was imposed as means of unifying the Chinese community and stem conflict between the dialect groups. That's not to say there wasn't freakish suggestions such as the imposition of Confucian teachings as posited by Lee Kuan Yew himself, but such suggestions were quickly shot down as too antagonistic towards the minorities.

As for the main question itself, it depends on how much worse the situation can get, because they're not going away so easily. UMNO leaders were already pressuring PM Tunku Abdul Rahman to arrest Lee when Separation loomed. It's likely in the near future, if the merger continued, Malaysia will continue to face brutal race riots, and it simply lacked the power and will to suppress Singapore's autonomy as promised in the merger agreement. If, for whatever reason, Lee Kuan Yew's opposition Malaysian Solidarity Convention wins a federal election and attempts to revoke the privileges of the Malay majority for an equal, Malaysian Malaysia, there will be considerable backlash from the community, and hence, more race riots.

Setting aside all that, though, how Malaysia turns out depends on who's leading it. An Alliance/Barisan Nasional-led united Malaysia will probably be a lot like OTL Malaysia, but with Singapore as the financial center, provided they don't pull any shit to whittle down its importance. A PAP-led one isn't going to be Singapore writ large, but without the reservations of the Bumiputera policy in place, Malaysia will likely not suffer the same brain drain among its minorities it does now. Either way, Singapore won't look the way it does IOTL, with less high rises, less developed metro system, etc., and neighbouring areas such as Johor Bahru will likely become de-facto suburbs. As for politics, we might either be looking at a more competitive two-party (or two-alliance) democratic system, or it's going to be brute-forced to favour one of the two alliances. Overall, unless a miracle happens, merger would likely be remembered the same way as we do IOTL, as a unhappy, even abusive marriage.

 

[Quintuplicate]

I admit, my answer will probably be a bit biased, as a Singaporean, and someone like @Flocculencio can probably answer it better than me, but here's my take:


Singapore was expelled in 1965, but that's a minor detail.


To clarify a bit on the context, the merger agreement signed between the PAP government in Singapore and the UMNO-led Alliance government (precursor to Barisan Nasional) in Malaya granted Singapore considerably more autonomy compared to the other states of Malaysia. In exchange for reduced representation in the federal government, Singapore was allowed to maintain independent control over its education and labour. Only control over defence, foreign relations and interior security (e.g. police) was handed over to the federal government. Moreover, parties from both sides are not allowed to compete in elections held on the other side of the straits (i.e. No Singaporean parties contesting in the federal elections, and no Malaysian parties in the Singapore state elections). But the situation got worse from there once UMNO contested in Singapore state elections against this clause. Coupled with the aforementioned ethnic, religious and cultural tensions, covert attacks by Indonesia over Malaysia's merger with Sarawak and Sabah, and PAP's subsequent decision to contest in federal elections and outright challenge to Malay-Muslim-centric federal policy only added fuel to the fire.


It's more of the opposite actually. Malaysia actually considered Singapore an economic rival rather than a burden, and the federal government feared that the national economy will be dominated by it.


No, not at all. While there's probably some migrations along the straits, it's mostly for personal or economic reasons. Many Singaporeans of all racial backgrounds have relatives on the other side of the straits, myself included. And while Malaysia defines its national identity along ethnic and religious lines (namely Malay Muslim), it also embraces multiculturalism to an extent, so long as the Malays do not feel threatened with the loss of their prime position in Malaysian society. Such national policies have grave problems, yes, but it's still far from the horror shows that accompanied the Greco-Turkish population exchange or the Partition of India.

As for Singapore, it has an overwhelming Chinese majority, and much of the political, economic and social spheres is dominated by it by virtue of numbers alone. That much is true. But Singapore is first and foremost, multicultural. No race is above any other under the constitution, and at most, recognition is given to the Malays as the native inhabitants of the region, with the national language being Malay, and administrative and common language being English.


I've no idea where you got that idea, but that's not true. All education in Singapore uses English as the medium, save for mother tongue language lessons, which are taught in the student's mother tongue (e.g. Mandarin, Malay or Tamil). Ironically, one can argue that it is the Chinese community that is marginalized (which is still a stretch, by all means), because almost none of them spoke Mandarin prior to its implementation, but rather, a variety of southern Chinese dialects like Hokkien, Cantonese or Hakka. Mandarin was imposed as means of unifying the Chinese community and stem conflict between the dialect groups. That's not to say there wasn't freakish suggestions such as the imposition of Confucian teachings as posited by Lee Kuan Yew himself, but such suggestions were quickly shot down as too antagonistic towards the minorities.

As for the main question itself, it depends on how much worse the situation can get, because they're not going away so easily. UMNO leaders were already pressuring PM Tunku Abdul Rahman to arrest Lee when Separation loomed. It's likely in the near future, if the merger continued, Malaysia will continue to face brutal race riots, and it simply lacked the power and will to suppress Singapore's autonomy as promised in the merger agreement. If, for whatever reason, Lee Kuan Yew's opposition Malaysian Solidarity Convention wins a federal election and attempts to revoke the privileges of the Malay majority for an equal, Malaysian Malaysia, there will be considerable backlash from the community, and hence, more race riots.

Setting aside all that, though, how Malaysia turns out depends on who's leading it. An Alliance/Barisan Nasional-led united Malaysia will probably be a lot like OTL Malaysia, but with Singapore as the financial center, provided they don't pull any shit to whittle down its importance. A PAP-led one isn't going to be Singapore writ large, but without the reservations of the Bumiputera policy in place, Malaysia will likely not suffer the same brain drain among its minorities it does now. Either way, Singapore won't look the way it does IOTL, with less high rises, less developed metro system, etc., and neighbouring areas such as Johor Bahru will likely become de-facto suburbs. As for politics, we might either be looking at a more competitive two-party (or two-alliance) democratic system, or it's going to be brute-forced to favour one of the two alliances. Overall, unless a miracle happens, merger would likely be remembered the same way as we do IOTL, as a unhappy, even abusive marriage.

What if Indonesia attacked Singapore after it became independent?

 

[Remitonov]

What if Indonesia attacked Singapore after it became independent?

Would have been rather pointless, since Konfrontasi was aimed at claiming Sabah and Sarawak from Malaysia. Besides which, it wouldn't have changed much if there was another attack. Bilateral relations were already poor as it was due to the hanging of a pair of Indonesian commandos responsible for the MacDonald House bombing, and was only restored after Lee paid his respects to their graves.

 

[Gillan1220]

Singapore would not look like the mutlicultural megacity that it is today. The iconic skyline would not exist.

Would have been rather pointless, since Konfrontasi was aimed at claiming Sabah and Sarawak from Malaysia. Besides which, it wouldn't have changed much if there was another attack. Bilateral relations were already poor as it was due to the hanging of a pair of Indonesian commandos responsible for the MacDonald House bombing, and was only restored after Lee paid his respects to their graves.

Considering too at that time Singapore was not an economic powerhouse but a backwater.

 

[RY1985]

Singapore was once part of Malaysia, but was expelled in 1964. There are several reasons behind this, including differences between the local government in Singapore and the central government in Kuala Lumpur; a bit of postcolonial/Cold War proxy politics; and ethnic, religious, and cultural tensions between the Singaporean Chinese and Muslim ethnic Malays.

At the time, many in Malaysia considered Singapore an economic burden; but after independence, Singapore was able to become one of the most important financial centres in the world. The Singaporean model of development would inspire many others -- including China, who under Deng Xiaoping imitated Singapore's model of central planning working closely with private capital.

But what if Malaysia had not expelled Singapore? What if Singapore was not able to pursue its own development path independent of Malaysia?

Also, everyone here more familiar with Southeast Asian history -- was there an ethnic exchange or migration between Singapore and Malaysia? Were Chinese in Malaysia or Muslims in Singapore forced to move to the other country (like in the Partition of India and Pakistan, or the population exchanges between Greece and Turkey)? Was there a large population of Muslim refugees from Singapore, or Chinese refugeese from Malaysia? I don't know, and my light googling hasn't immediately given me an answer. I do know that both Malaysia and Singapore are very racially diverse, and that there's still a large Chinese minority in Malaysia and a large Muslim minority in Singapore. Both governments have taken official steps to protect minority interests. However, I also know that the Malay government has had several official Islamisation campaigns, and the Singaporean government has had campaigns to encourage education in English and Mandarin Chinese (and marginalised the Malay and Tamil-speaking communities), while simultaneously granting Malay and Tamil protected status.

Very complicated and way too many Butterfly effects.

But I wish to speculate on the economic effects.

Before WW2 and also, before 1960s, Singapore was already a major trading hub of South East Asia. I checked on online archives, economic figures, and old footage.

That was why it was administered separately as a Crown Colony and not part of the British-controlled Federated Malay States.

It had a large modern port, has shipyards and drydocks capable of accommodating the largest battleships of the UK Royal Navy, a massive oil bunker facility in one of the small southern islands, electrification (at least in the urban areas). It had urban electrification, paved roads linking different parts of the island and clusters of six-story buildings in the city center. Its counter-parts in South East Asia were Phnom Penh and Batavia. Only Manila was more developed.

But it was also very unequal, with most of the population either living in urban slums, in the shophouses, with 20 people packed to one shophouse or in the rural slums, with no electricity and no piped water.

The newly independent government made a huge push for American manufacturers to set up shop, and the US MNCs did not just did so because of low cost, but because their factories could get electricity, there were roads to ship the goods from the factory to the port, and from the port back to the US.

As long as maritime trade in this ATL still exists in more or less the same format, and cargo ships sailing between the Indian and Pacfic Ocean, there will be some maritime trade. It is just a level of whether a government can effectively capitalise on the potential economic spin-offs.

Most likely this ATL Singapore will look a lot like a combination of present-day OTL Penang Island and Johor Bahru - there will be skyscrapers, but no MRT metro system, poor public transit, unwalkable streets, and few public housing blocks which are poorly maintained, but a huge port. And a terrible airport.

 

[RY1985]

Very complicated and way too many Butterfly effects.

But I wish to speculate on the economic effects.

Before WW2 and also, before 1960s, Singapore was already a major trading hub of South East Asia. I checked on online archives, economic figures, and old footage.

That was why it was administered separately as a Crown Colony and not part of the British-controlled Federated Malay States.

It had a large modern port, has shipyards and drydocks capable of accommodating the largest battleships of the UK Royal Navy, a massive oil bunker facility in one of the small southern islands, electrification (at least in the urban areas). It had urban electrification, paved roads linking different parts of the islands and clusters of six-story buildings in the city center. Its counter-parts in South East Asia were Phnom Penh and Batavia. Only Manila was more developed.

But it was also very unequal, with most of the population either living in urban slums, in the shophouse, with 20 people packed to one shophouse or in the rural slums., with no electricity and no piped water.

The newly independent government made a huge push for American manufacturers to set up shop, and the US MNCs did not just did so because of low cost, but because their factories could get electricity, there were roads to ship the goods from the factory to the port, and from the port back to the US.

As long as maritime trade in this ATL still exists in more or less the same format, and cargo ships sailing between the Indian and Pacfic Ocean, there will be some maritime trade. It is just a level of whether a government can effectively capitalise on the potential economic spin-offs.

Most likely this ATL Singapore will look a lot like a combination of present-day OTL Penang Island and Johor Bahru - there will be skyscrapers, but no MRT metro system, poor public transit, unwalkable streets, and few public housing blocks which are poorly maintained, but a huge port. And a terribe airport.

And probably no giant petro-chemical complex at Jurong Island.

 

[Remitonov]

And probably no giant petro-chemical complex at Jurong Island.

It kind of depends. It's likely the ATL Petronas (Malaysia's national oil company) would set up refining facilities in Singapore for convenience. But again, this is dependent on the outcome of a successful merger, if it doesnt turn the country into Bosnia-Herzegovina.

 

[Admiral Bloonbeard]

Singapore would not look like the mutlicultural megacity that it is today. The iconic skyline would not exist.

Considering too at that time Singapore was not an economic powerhouse but a backwater.

Considering Kuala Lumpur does have a skyline, Singapore can too

Singapore an economic backwater? It was considered the pearl of the East and a very important hub for the British during the colonial era. Think of Singapore for Malaysia the equivalent of Rhineland for Germany.

 

[Remitonov]

Considering Kuala Lumpur does have a skyline, Singapore can too

Singapore an economic backwater? It was considered the pearl of the East and a very important hub for the British during the colonial era. Think of Singapore for Malaysia the equivalent of Rhineland for Germany.

The thing is, though, Singapore developed the way it did after independence in reaction to Separation. Efficient land use became vital as a city-state, and the substitution economy planned under merger (where the rest of Malaysia would act as the hinterland for Singapore's factories) needed to be replaced by something viable under the new circumstances, which is the export economy IOTL. Kuala Lumpur's own skyline is also, in some ways, a reaction to Singapore's prosperity and a pressing need to catch up. Under merger, neither would not happen the same way it would IOTL. Land use would not be so stringently micromanaged when Singaporeans could freely move to Johor and the economy could be developed as originally planned by the PAP government.

 

[jsb]

The thing is, though, Singapore developed the way it did after independence in reaction to Separation. Efficient land use became vital as a city-state,

And probably no giant petro-chemical complex at Jurong Island.

It's also one of the best placed natural ports in the world on the choke point of one of the busiest trade routes in the world, would it not still be the largest oil refinery and port anyway simply due to economics and easy of transhipment at the natural meeting point of trade routes?

 

[RY1985]

It's also one of the best placed natural ports in the world on the choke point of one of the busiest trade routes in the world, would it not still be the largest oil refinery and port anyway simply due to economics and easy of transhipment at the natural meeting point of trade routes?

In OTL, Singapore did have its own massive bunker fuel storage facility, built in 1897 if I am remembering correctly, to refuel cargo ships (and Royal Navy warships) passing through Singapore, but it was really a storage facility while the refined fuel was shipped from elsewhere.

If I am not wrong (I would need to refer back to my history texts), the first industrial-level refinery (capable of supplying fuel for cargo ships rather than kerosene for household kerosene lamps) in Singapore was only built in 1962.

Considering the strategic location of Singapore, it would have made sense for the British to have built up a petrochemical complex.

But it didn't happen. I suspect land availability was a problem. The current petro-chemical complex in Singapore was actually built on one of the biggest artificial islands in the world.

But I think so long as world trade, greased by GATT rules, does not change too much in this ATL, it would still be a huge and busy port.

What is most likely to never happen would be the public housing sucess-story or the presence of the semiconductor industry.

 

[jsb]

In OTL, Singapore did have its own massive bunker fuel storage facility, built in 1897 if I am remembering correctly, to refuel cargo ships (and Royal Navy warships) passing through Singapore, but it was really a storage facility while the refined fuel was shipped from elsewhere.

If I am not wrong (I would need to refer back to my history texts), the first industrial-level refinery (capable of supplying fuel for cargo ships rather than kerosene for household kerosene lamps) in Singapore was only built in 1962.

Considering the strategic location of Singapore, it would have made sense for the British to have built up a petrochemical complex.

But it didn't happen. I suspect land availability was a problem. The current petro-chemical complex in Singapore was actually built on one of the biggest artificial islands in the world.

Is that not more that pre Opec/post WWII refining was done at the extraction area and shipped mostly as refined produce? Ie Gulf oil was refined at Abadan for UK and then ships after? It's only after you start thinking they might confiscate your refinery, or you might want to buy oil from different places, that other site options start being used?

 

[RY1985]

Is that not more that pre Opec/post WWII refining was done at the extraction area and shipped mostly as refined produce? Ie Gulf oil was refined at Abadan for UK and then ships after? It's only after you start thinking they might confiscate your refinery, or you might want to buy oil from different places, that other site options start being used?

The reason why I am not fully convinced that a petrochemical complex was inevitable in Singapore in this ATL is because for quite some time, Singapore was, for much of its post-independence history, after 1965, was neck-to-neck with Hong Kong's port in terms of volume, and if you take a look at Google Map and publicly available info on Hong Kong's total land area and coastal terrain, Hong Kong actually had a lot more usable land to build a petro-chemical complex to complement Hong Kong's port but Hong Kong never built any refining complex that even came close to rivalling Singapore's petro-chemical, or even that of much smaller refineries across the region.

But I need to confess that I have the advantage of having the insider's insight because i was involved in a writing up a historical analysis of the O&G development in Southeast Asia, so I knew that during the late 1960s and 1970s, oil "supermajors" from the West and Japan were considering some of the Indonesian islands closer to Singapore to be realistic contenders to build refineries ( these islands were near enough to Singapore) based on land availability and that any proposals involving Singapore were just there to give the appearance of "alternative choices", but wacky alternatives nevertheless.

Having said that, push comes to shove, if some higher authority, for some strange reason, insist on building a petrochemical complex on Singapore's main island instead of spending funds to build an artificial island for this purpose, it can be done but it would most likely end up displacing around one-fourth of the entire population of Singapore. It may actually spark a civil war.

 

[Oda]

Singapore will definitely be seeing economic growth but it won’t be like OTL rich (side glance east Malaysia)

 

[Oda]

In OTL, Singapore did have its own massive bunker fuel storage facility, built in 1897 if I am remembering correctly, to refuel cargo ships (and Royal Navy warships) passing through Singapore, but it was really a storage facility while the refined fuel was shipped from elsewhere.

If I am not wrong (I would need to refer back to my history texts), the first industrial-level refinery (capable of supplying fuel for cargo ships rather than kerosene for household kerosene lamps) in Singapore was only built in 1962.

Considering the strategic location of Singapore, it would have made sense for the British to have built up a petrochemical complex.

But it didn't happen. I suspect land availability was a problem. The current petro-chemical complex in Singapore was actually built on one of the biggest artificial islands in the world.

But I think so long as world trade, greased by GATT rules, does not change too much in this ATL, it would still be a huge and busy port.

What is most likely to never happen would be the public housing sucess-story or the presence of the semiconductor industry.

The public housing success might still be pushed through in a timeline where PAP managed to get their Malaysia Malaysian policy or Singapore self governance provided Lim kim san is still in charge guy was a fucking chad

 

[Dan1988]

The thing is, though, Singapore developed the way it did after independence in reaction to Separation. Efficient land use became vital as a city-state, and the substitution economy planned under merger (where the rest of Malaysia would act as the hinterland for Singapore's factories) needed to be replaced by something viable under the new circumstances, which is the export economy IOTL.

That actually leads to an interesting idea that popped up in my head. While Singapore is just a variation of it (as was Hong Kong, to some degree), generally in East Asian countries, Joe Studwell wrote the book How Asia Works that compared Japan, South Korea, and Taiwan (and how they developed) with countries that did not follow the formula, and Malaysia was one of the cautionary tales (because of Mahatir's misguided industrialization drive). If Singapore did not separate from Malaysia, and had more competent people at the helm running the Malaysian economy, could it possible to have Malaysia follow a similar path to Japan and Taiwan in terms of industrialization and economic development?