¹ Ding, Chiang Hai, “A History of Straits Settlements Foreign Trade, 1870–1915,” Ph.D. dissertation (Australian National University, 1963)Google Scholar now being published as a monograph by the Singapore National Museum; Huff, W.G., “The Economic Development of Singapore 1900–1939,” a doctoral thesis in progress in the University of LondonGoogle Scholar, together with the author's “The Trade of Singapore, 1819–1869,” Journal of the Malayan Branch, Royal Asiatic Society, XXXIII (1960)Google Scholar, cover the basic researches into Singapore's pre-war economic history.

² The sources of statistics used in this article are the annual trade returns for the Straits Settlements, 1841–1938. Earlier statistics are from Holloway, C.P., The Tabular Statements of the Commerce of Singapore, 1823–1824 (Singapore, 1842)Google Scholar. No figures for 1939 to 1941 are available in Singapore. For a brief history of trade statistics, see Ding, Chiang Hai, “The Statistics of the Straits Settlements Foreign Trade, 1870–1915,” Malayan Economic Review X (1965), 73–83Google Scholar. Unless otherwise stated, all the tables in this article are derived from these primary statistical sources, but their simplicity should not be the cause of overlooking the enormous efforts involved in their collection, recalculation, and derivation.

³ See Wong, “The Trade of Singapore,” op. cit., 11–34 for detailed treatment of this subject. Quotation from Hastings Instructions to Raffles, 28 Nov. 1818, cited in full in Wurtzburg, C.E., Raffles of the Eastern Seas (London. 1954), pp. 461–64Google Scholar.

⁴ This subject has been fully treated in Mark, Harry J., The First Contest for Singapore 1819–1824 (ʻS-Gravenhage, 1959)Google Scholar.

⁵ Third Report from the Select Committee Appointed to Consider the Means of Improving 2nd Maintaining the Foreign Trade of the Country, 18 May 1821, British Sessional Paper, 535, VI (1821), 282.

⁶ The subject is fully treated in Wong, “The Trade of Singapore,” op. cit., 106–33.

⁷ Earl, G.W., The Eastern Seas in 1832–1834 (London, 1837), p. 434Google Scholar; Simmonds, P. L., “The Trade and Commerce of the Eastern Archipelago,” Straits Times and Singapore Journal of Commerce, 6, 13, and 20 July 1861Google Scholar.

⁸ For a detailed treatment of this subject, see Wong, “The Trade of Singapore,” op. cit., 35–70. Apropos the complaints of the Singapore merchants, a British Foreign Office Memorandum, dated 16 December 1841, noted that in the period 1834–1839, the ratio of British to Dutch imports was six to seven of the total import trade of Java, “a share in the trade of a colony which, if the matter were reversed, would be considered by the British merchants as rather a large one for a foreign nation to enjoy.” Correspondence respecting the Policy of the Netherlands Government in the Eastern Seas as affecting British Commerce 1824–1867. Confidential, British Foreign Office, No. 7, Paper 157, Dec. 1869.

⁹ This subject is fully treated in Ken, Wong Lin, The Malayan Tin Industry to 1914 (Tucson, 1965), pp. 1–52Google Scholar.

¹⁰ This subject is fully treated in Wong, “The Trade of Singapore,” op. cit., 134–58.

¹¹ The author has selected 1913 as the base year, following the arguments of Yates, P. Lamartine in his Forty Years of Foreign Trade: A Statistical Handbook with Special Reference to Primary Products and Under-Developed Countries (London, 1959), pp. 15–21Google Scholar. Chiang, op. cit., 132–37, has used 1900 as the base year, which the author has rejected in favour of Yates' choice of 1913.

¹² Siong, Ong Kim, “The Isthmus of Kra (1843–1886): A Study of the Early Kra Canal and Railway Projects,” Unpublished academic exercise (University of Singapore 1954)Google Scholar.

¹³ See Wong, “The Trade of Singapore,” op. cit., 176–93 for detailed treatment. Quotations from Raffles to the Marquess of Lansdowne, 15 April 1820, Appendix T, Report (Relative to the Trade with the East Indies and China) from the Select Committee of the House of Lords, 7 May 1821, British Sessional Paper, 476, VII (1821).

¹⁴ For detailed treatment, see Wong, “The Trade of Singapore,” op. cit., 86–105.

¹⁴ Temminck, C.J., Coup-dʼocil general surles Possessions Neerlandaises dans I'lnde Archipelagique, III (Leyden, 1846–1849), 32–33Google Scholar.

¹⁶ Unlike Sarawak, Labuan was founded as some kind of a rival to Singapore, see John Crawford. Opinion on the Proposed Occupation of Labuan (undated), cited in full in chapter 10 of Keppel, Henry, The Expedition to Borneo of H.M.S, Dido for the Suppression of Piracy, 11 (London, 1847)Google Scholar.

¹⁷ Commercial Tariffs and Regulations, Resources, and Trade of India, Ceylon, and Other Oriental Countries by John MacGregor, July 1848. British Sessional Paper, 974, LXI (1847–1848), 741; John Dalton, Singapore Chronicle 1830, cited in Moore, J.H., Notices of the Indian Archipelago and Adjacent Countries (Singapore, 1837)Google Scholar.

¹⁸ Straits Settlements Records (R. 4), 12 Sept. 1837.

¹⁹ Crawford, J., History of the Indian Archipelago. III (Edinburgh, 1820), p. 263Google Scholar. This need was mentioned by practically every merchant with eastern interests when called before the Parliamentary Committees on British Eastern Trade in 1820–21.

²⁰ Earl, op. cit., p. 363; Singapore Free Press, 11 Nov. 1860; Siang, Song Ong, One Hundred Years History of the Chinese in Singapore (London, 1923)Google Scholar gives the history of some of the early Chinese firms and merchants.

²¹ Thomson, J., The Straits of Malacca, Indo-China and China (London, 1875), pp. 11–13Google Scholar.

²² Derived from the Tables in Appendix B, Wong, “The Trade of Singapore,” op. cit., 276, 278–90, 293–95.

²³ Ibid., 82–83, 122–24, 147–58.

²⁴ See Caldwell, J.M., “Indonesian Export and Production from the Decline of the Culture System to the First World War,” The Economic Development of Southeast Asia, ed. Cowan, C.D. (London, 1964)Google Scholar.

²⁵ Charles A. Fisher, “Some Comments on Population Growth in Southeast Asia with Special Reference to the Period since 1830,” Cowan, op. cit., especially pp. 60–64.

²⁶ In Chiang, op. cit., 132–37, an attempt has been made to compute the real growth rate from the years 1870 to 1915 by converting the dollar value of the Straits Settlements into pound sterling at the then current rates of exchange. It has been found that the trade of the Straits ports had increased by only five and a half times, instead of almost eleven times if expressed in dollar value. Using data in Yates, op. cit., pp. 28, 30, it is possible to give a broad comparison of the growth of Singapore's trade with the world's before the First World War.

²⁷ Chiang, op. cit., 238–261.

²⁸ Report of the Commissions Appointed by His Excellency the Governor of the Straits Settlements and of the Federated Malay States to Enquire into and Report on (a) the Present State of Trade Depression Brought about in the Main by the Continued Depression in the Rubber Industry; and (b) the Extension of Credit Facilities (Singapore, 1921), (henceforth referred to as 1921 Trade Commission Report) pp. 3, 4, 7. Quotation from p. 4. By 1920, Malaya was already producing 57.6% of the world output of rubber, more than twice the production of Indonesia, estimated at 25.4%. Ibid., p. 9.

²⁹ See Statistical Appendix XII, Chiang, op. cit., which gives a quantitative and value analysis of the main items of Singapore's trade, 1870–1915.

³⁰ For the rise of the rubber manufacturing industry, see Woodruff, William, The Rise of the British Rubber Industry During the Nineteenth Century (Liverpool, 1958)Google Scholar: and Schidrowitz, P., History of the Rubber Industry (Cambridge, 1952)Google Scholar. For the tin industry, see Wong, op. cit.

³¹ Figures for 1900 are derived from Trade and Shipping of Southeast Asia, British Sessional Paper, Cd. 324, LXXXVII (1900), 113Google Scholar. Figures for 1913 are derived from Gull, E.M., British Economic Interests in the Far East (London, 1943), pp. 97–98Google Scholar.

³² Meyer, F.V., Britain's Colonies in World Trade (London, 1948), pp. 139–44Google Scholar.

³³ Caldwell, “Indonesian Export,” Cowan, op. cit., pp. 95–96. For a brief introduction into Anglo-Dutch shipping rivalry, see Francis E. Hyde, “British Shipping Companies in East and South-East Asia 1860–1939,” Cowan, op. cit., pp. 27–7.

³⁴ Report of the Commission appointed by His Excellency the Governor of the Straits Settlements to Enquire into and Report on the Trade of the Colony 1933–1934, I (Singapore, 1934), 96–98. Henceforth referred to as 1933–1934 Trade Commission Report this report consists of five volumes, representing, in the words of the commission, “a permanent and useful record” of Singapore's “trade, its channels and industries”. There has been no such other comprehensive enquiry into Singapore's trade before or since.

³⁵ Derived from British Sessional Paper. Cd. 324. LXXXVII (1900), 31–32.

³⁶ Chiang, op. cit., 165–66; James C. Ingram, “Thailand's Rice Trade and the Allocation of Resources,” Cowan, op. cit., pp. 104–5.

³⁷ Swettenham, Frank, British Malaya, revised edition (London, 1948), pp. 231–32Google Scholar.

³⁸ Fieldwick, W., Present-Day Impressions of the Far East and Prominent and Progressive Chinese at Home and Abroad (London, 1917), p. 878Google Scholar.

³⁹ Hyde, Francis E., Far Eastern Trade 1860–1914 (London, 1973), pp. 16–19, 165–66Google Scholar.

⁴⁰ For fuller treatment, see Ding, Chiang Hai, “The Early Shipping Conference System of Singapore 1897–1911,” Journal of Southeast Asian History, XI, 1 (Mar. 1969), 50–68CrossRefGoogle Scholar. For the later period, see 1933–1934 Trade Commission Report, I, 71–93. Apropos the Straits Homeward Conference, the 1933–1934 Trade Commission Report, I, 233, notes, “Opinion has changed locally since 1910 and the Conference is generally admitted to be advantageous to the trade of the Colony.”

⁴¹ In the inter-war years, the figure declined further, being as follows: 1925, 6%; 1935,4%.

⁴² Ding, Chiang Hai, “Sino-British Mercantile Relations in Singapore's Entrepot Trade, 1870–1915,” Studies in the Social History of China and Southeast Asia, ed. Chʻen, Jerome, and Tarling, Nicholas (Cambridge, 1970), pp. 249–50Google Scholar; Mills, Lennox A., British Rule in Eastern Asia (London, 1942), pp. 114–15Google Scholar.

⁴³ Hyde, op. cit, pp. 186–96.

⁴⁴ Wright, Philip G., Trade and Trade Barriers in the Pacific (California, 1935), pp. 2–5Google Scholar.

⁴⁵ Meyer, op.cit., pp.163–64, 167, 189–92; Gull, op. cit., pp. 121–24.

⁴⁶ Meyer, op. cit., pp. 9–14.

⁴⁷ Report of the Committee appointed by His Excellency the Governor of the Straits Settlements and the High Commissioner for the Malay States to examine and report on the practicability of a Customs Union of all the Malay States of the Malay Peninsula and the possibility of including in such union the Settlements of Malacca, Province Wellesley and the Dindings, 13 Feb. 1933 (henceforth referred to as 1933 Customs Union Committee Report), pp. 3–5, 9–10; quotation from 1933–1934 Trade Commission Report I, 19.

⁴⁸ 1921 Trade Commission Report, pp. 4–18, quotation from p. 18.

⁴⁹ It is not possible to have a complete series for the trade of Singapore (including bullion), Penang, and Malacca. For 1916 to 1927, figures that included Penang and Malacca would exclude bullion, and those that included bullion would exclude these two Straits ports. From 1928 to 1938, the merchandise figures excluded Penang and Malacca as well. The only comparable series referred to the foreign trade of Singapore including bullion but excluding Penang and Malacca. This series is used in this Table for all years except 1917 and 1918, for which merchandise figures including these two Straits ports but excluding bullion are used, as the relevant figures were not published. In Tables 4 and 13, the trade of Singapore included Penang and Malacca as well as bullion.

⁵⁰ 1933–1934 Trade Commission Report, I, 42–48, IV, Tables 3 and 11 in Appendix 178.

⁵¹ Ibid., IV, 41, 138. Quotation from I, 93.

⁵² Ibid, I, 48–49.

⁵³ 1933 Customs Union Committee Report, pp. 7–8.

⁵⁴ “Report of the Customs Duties Committee appointed by His Excellency Sir Cecil Clementi. Governor and Commander-in-Chief of the Straits Settlements,” 23 Feb. 1932, No. 19, Legislative Council Proceedings, 1932 (henceforth referred to as 1931–1932 Customs Duties Committee Report), C155, C158–C160.

⁵⁵ Ibid., C162–C163.

⁵⁶ 1933–1934 Trade Commission Report, I, 145–53, 163–67.

⁵⁷ “Report of the Committee Appointed to Enquire into Preferential Tariffs and Protective Duties in the Straits Settlements and Federated Malay States,” No. 38, Federal Council Proceedings, 13 Dec. 1921, C332–C349.

⁵⁸ 1933–1934 Trade Commission Report, I, 151–52.

⁵⁹ For a study of imperial preference and the trade of Malaya, including the Straits ports, see Meyer, op. cit., ch. 12.

⁶⁰ Mills op. cit, pp. 135–60 for a study of the textile trade in Malaya, including Singapore. See also 1933–1934 Trade Commission Report, I, 55–70. Quotations from pp. 61, 63.

⁶¹ 1933–1934 Trade Commission Report, I, 156–62. Quotation from pp. 62–63.

⁶² Meyer, op. cit., pp. 225, 227, 228, 235, 237: Gull, op. cit., pp. 124–40, 223–37; Wright, op. cit., pp. 236–49, 268–309, 407–35.

⁶³ Based on two studies, namely J. van Gelderen, The Recent Development of Economic Foreign Policy in the Netherlands East Indies (Belgium, 1939); and Jan O.M. Brock, Economic Development of the Netherland Indies (New York, 1942). Table 16 is derived from van Gelderen, op. cit, p. 17; Brock, op. cit., pp. 89, 90.

⁶⁴ Department of Trade and Industry, British Military Administration, Singapore, The Entrepot Trade of Singapore (Singapore, 1945), pp. 14–15Google Scholar.

⁶⁵ In 1870, Singapore's home-grown gambier formed 50% of its gambier-exports, but by 1872, virtually all the exports were re-exports.

⁶⁶ 1933–1934 Trade Commission Report, 1, 41.

⁶⁷ Wong, “The Trade of Singapore,” op. cit., 122, 166–67.

⁶⁸ Chiang, “Sino-British Mercantile Relations,” Chʼen and Tarling, op. cit., p. 265; 1933–1934 Trade Commission Report, I, 50.

⁶⁹ The Entrepot Trade of Singapore, pp. 16–17, quotation from p. 17.

⁷⁰ Ibid., p. 18.

⁷¹ 1931–1932 Customs Duties Committee Report, C158.