City of Stars or City of Tears?: A Questioning of Singapore’s Development

Ani’s family is dysfunctional – her father is an unemployed drunkard, and her siblings are either missing or imprisoned for crimes. Ani only relies on her mother's occasional earnings from laundry services for financial sustenance and Siti, her schoolmate for emotional solace.

The story of Ani is a representation of a community grappling with capitalism amidst a rapid, burgeoning economy. In trying to fit in and keep up with the demanding system, Latiff shows how there are many, especially in the Malay community, who become socio-economically displaced because they are consumed and racked by the rigorous capitalistic structure.

The non-negotiable task of the Malay community to keep up with development so that they do not ‘lag behind’ could be seen as the coercion of the community into the larger ideology of capitalism and pragmatism² instituted by the state. This has been very well encapsulated by Latiff as he illustrates how the Malays are held responsible for their failure in being progressive. In Kota Airmata, he questions the dominant discourse on Malay underdevelopment that has been mostly centred on cultural deficit explanations, rendering other ideological and institutional factors less important in explaining the socio-economic malaise faced by the Malays.

For example, Ani's inability to pay her school and examination fees was seen by her teacher as a ‘Malay problem’: “Our people usually can’t afford school fees of $4.00 but can afford watching movies in the cinema…” ³ However, Ani's disadvantageous socio-economic circumstances were not paid attention to by her teacher.

Instead, the blame was entirely put on Ani and her family. No regard was given to the fact that only Ani's mother is supporting the family with her meagre earnings and that Ani did not manage to receive any bursaries.

Latiff also highlights the ignorance towards the existence of the economically marginalised in a city like Singapore, which is deemed by Ani’s teacher as one that is developed: “…in Cikgu Majid’s mind, everyone lives comfortably like him… He does not believe that there are poor people like Ani in a city like this…” ⁴

Ani’s story in Kota Airmata unfortunately ends in a tragedy. The dreadful predicament she was confronted with worsened when she got pregnant after getting raped. The narration ends with Ani committing suicide because of the immense shame, pressure and depression that she experienced.

Through this novel, Latiff highlights to us the immense suffering and vicious cycle that the socio-economically displaced are trapped in, specifically because of the capitalistic ideas on development that the state has adopted. More significantly, Ani's death was not given a second thought. The city dwellers of Singapore continue with their busy lives after reading the report of Ani’s suicide in the newspapers⁵. Here, Latiff is emphasising the unfeeling nature of the Singapore society, as they do not question the reason for this suicide, as though they are desensitised by news like this.

Being cognisant of the rights and dignity of the economically marginalised like Ani, Latiff brings to light their sufferings which have been silenced by the larger, dominant narratives of development and progress. Writers like Latiff urge the society to pay attention to the human aspects of development, such as the welfare and psychological needs of the marginalised like Ani. To him, because of development, life in Singapore has made the society ruthless and lack humanity⁶.

The Costs of Economic Development

Another work where he criticises development in Singapore is his short prose, Nostalgia yang Hilang⁷. This prose tells a story of the narrator, who reunites with his brother who migrated to London for 30 years. In the conversations between these two siblings, we will be able to glean Latiff’s questioning on the very idea or definition of development: “Does progress mean that we destroy or demolish everything that is old? Moral and cultural development must be on par with economic growth too.” ⁸

For Latiff, therefore, development does not equate to progress. For him, economic development should not be the only aim of a society. Resettlements, constructions of high-rise buildings, and great infrastructure do not suggest and guarantee the development of thought and values of a society. For him, development should not just be denoted by material terms, it should be an ideal and an objective that permeates the moral and value spheres.

While on one hand, dominant state narratives celebrate the move towards economic growth and development, works by Malay literatis like Latiff present to us the tears of people living in a city like Singapore. He sheds light on the human dimension of development, specifically highlighting the cost of this material pursuit. Through his writings, Latiff calls upon our society to think of alternative models of development, which is synonymously argued by intellectuals like Walter Mignolo⁹. Mignolo argues that societies based on economic growth and development first have continued to disregard the consequences of achieving these goals. Economies based on a Western capitalistic model “[have] continued to create increased economic inequality, wars to secure natural resources and [have] incited people to believe that happiness consists of acquiring commodities.” ¹⁰ It is therefore pertinent that societies come up with other, more balanced and sustainable models, which writers like Latiff have proposed.

While Francis Fukuyama¹¹ has argued that capitalism is inevitable, we cannot lose hope and have to continue to think of a recourse to economic development, “where the final horizon is the wellbeing of people and the survival of nature.” ¹²

Overhauling our ideas and definitions of progress and development is a tedious process but it is not impossible. If, in this highly competitive society, stars have always been marked by economic and academic achievements, there must be a way to build a city of stars where the stars – ambitions and aspirations of the people in this city – are not just made of dollars and signs, but moral and humane values too.