- Lee Kuan Yew, The Singapore Story: Memoirs of Lee Kuan Yew (Singapore: Times Editions Pte Ltd and Singapore Press Holdings, 1998), pp. 631-632.
- Leslie Fong, "The Week Before Separation", in Singapore 25 Years: A Straits Times Special, National Day, 9 Aug 1990, ed. Leslie Fong (Singapore: Straits Times Press, 1990), pp. 5-10 and Lee, The Singapore Story, pp. 628-647.
Showing posts with label Singapore. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Singapore. Show all posts
Monday, 10 August 2015
Monday, August 10, 2015
Exposing the Truth
,
Fact
,
Federation of Malaysia 16 September 1963
,
History
,
Singapore
No comments
The Proclamation of Singapore as Independence Country in 1965
The Proclamation of Singapore that announced Singapore's separation from Malaysia on 9 August 1965 was drafted by Mr E W Barker, then Minister for Law. He was also responsible for drafting two other related documents, namely: an Amendment relating to the separation of Singapore from Malaysia as an independent and sovereign state, and an Act to amend the Constitution of Malaysia and the Malaysia Act to give Singapore independence.
PM Lee Kuan Yew entrusted Mr E W Barker with the job of drafting the documents in mid-July 1965 after he received news that the Federal Cabinet had agreed with Tunku Abdul Rahman that Singapore should separate from Malaysia. After several rounds of negotiations between the Singapore government represented by Mr Lee and Dr Goh Keng Swee, Minister of Finance, and the Malaysian government represented by Tunku, Tun Abdul Razak, Deputy Prime Minister, Dato Ismail bin Dato Abdul Rahman, Home Affairs Minister and Tun Tan Siew Sin, Finance Minister, the abovementioned documents were eventually finalised on 7 August.
"Every time I look at these Agreements, I'm happy, I have a sense of pride, having contributed to a major change - the separation of Singapore from Malaysia. I was able to draft these documents then in a short time because I had just left the Bar, in fact, nine months before that. I had been in practice for 14 years and had a lot of experience. Hence, I was able to do it."
Extract of oral history interview with Mr E W Barker, 1982.
Information extracted from the oral history interview of Mr E W Barker, Accession No: 000193
Proclamation of Singapore that Mr E W Barker
drafted was signed by Mr Lee on 9 August 1965.
Monday, 6 July 2015
Monday, July 06, 2015
Agreement of Malaysia
,
Exposing the Truth
,
Fact
,
Federation of Malaysia 16 September 1963
,
History
,
Independence
,
Separation
,
Singapore
No comments
Singapore Separates From Malaysia And Becomes Independent on August 9th, 1965
On 9 August 1965, Singapore separated from Malaysia to become an independent and sovereign state.[1] The separation was the result of deep political and economic differences between the ruling parties of Singapore and Malaysia,[2] which created communal tensions that resulted in racial riots in July and September 1964.[3] At a press conference announcing the separation, then Singapore Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew was overcome by emotions and broke down. Singapore’s union with Malaysia had lasted for less than 23 months.[4]
Singapore in Malaysia
Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew signed the Malaysia Agreement in London on 9 July 1963.[5] The agreement spelt out the terms for the formation of the Federation of Malaysia, comprising Singapore, Malaya, Sarawak and North Borneo (Sabah), which was to take place on 31 August 1963.[6] The terms for Singapore’s entry into Malaysia, which were agreed upon by both the Singapore and federal governments, were published in a White Paper in November 1961.[7] This White Paper documented the outcome of talks between Lee and then Malayan Prime Minister Tunku Abdul Rahman on Singapore’s inclusion into Malaysia. The terms included the margins of Singapore's autonomy, Singapore's political representation in the federal government, the status of Singapore citizens and Singapore’s revenue contribution to the federal government.[8] Prior to the signing of the Malaysia Agreement in London, there was a week of “arduous and gruelling negotiations” over the more thorny issues of a common market between Singapore and Malaya, and the portion of Singapore’s revenue and taxes that would go to the federal government.[9] With these issues settled, Singapore began its journey as part of Malaysia.
A Difficult Union
Even before the proclamation of the formation of the Federation of Malaysia on 16 September 1963, Singapore and Malayan leaders were mindful that the differences in the political approach and economic conditions between the two countries “cannot be wiped out overnight”.[10] This, however, did not prevent sharp exchanges between the leaders of both countries throughout the period of the union. The slow progress of the creation of a common market and the difficulty in getting pioneer status from Kula Lumpur for Singapore industries frustrated Singapore leaders, while Kuala Lumpur was dissatisfied with Singapore's dogged response to the federal government’s clamour for increased revenue contribution to combat the Indonesian Confrontation, and for an agreed loan to develop Sabah and Sarawak.[11]
At the political front, the grossly imbalanced Malay-Chinese population in both countries made each vulnerable to communal prejudices which were played up by political leaders. The two major political parties in Malaysia, the People’s Action Party (PAP) and the United Malays National Organisation (UMNO), were soon accusing one another of communalism. The accusations escalated into tensions until they erupted into racial violence in Singapore on 21 July and 2 September 1964.[12] Despite agreeing to a two-year truce in September 1964, the acrimony between UMNO and PAP soon flared up again. At the heart of the rift was Lee’s multi-racial slogan, “Malaysian Malaysia”, which sowed deep distrust among UMNO leaders, especially the “ultras”, who viewed his vision of a non-communal Malaysia as a challenge to their party’s raison d'être of undisputed Malay dominance.[13]
Separation
By the second half of 1965, the stormy political climate in Malaysia showed no signs of easing. Tunku Abdul Rahman, who had become the Malaysian Prime Minister, was pressed to intervene to avoid a repeat of the communal clashes that had taken place in 1964. During his London trip to attend the Commonwealth Prime Ministers' Conference in June 1965, the Tunku decided that severing Singapore from the federation was the only course and communicated this to his deputy, Tun Abdul Razak, who was instructed to sound out the senior Malaysian ministers and lay the groundwork for separation.[14] By the time the Tunku returned to Kuala Lumpur on 5 August, Singapore’s days in the federation were numbered.[15]
The week leading to 9 August 1965 was a busy time for the leaders of both countries as by this time, separation had become a certainty.[16] Negotiations were, however, done in complete secrecy. In Singapore, not only were civil servants and permanent secretaries kept in the dark, but some senior PAP cabinet members, most notably Deputy Prime Minister Toh Chin Chye and Culture Minister Rajaratnam, were also clueless. Leading the negotiations for Singapore was then Finance Minister Goh Keng Swee, and for Malaysia, Tun Razak.[17] Razak was aiming to convene a federal parliament sitting on 9 August and was pushing for the legal paperwork for the release of Singapore to be tabled at that session.[18] In Singapore, Lee had asked then Law Minister E. W. Barker to draft the separation agreement at the end of July, along with other legal documents such as the Proclamation of Independence.[19]
As the deadline of 9 August neared, Goh and Barker made arrangements to travel to Kuala Lumpur to finalise the separation, arriving quietly in the capital on 6 August. Lee, who was in Cameron Highlands at that time, left for Kuala Lumpur and also arrived on 6 August to study and approve the separation documents. Thereafter, the separation draft prepared by Barker occupied the attention of five men – Razak, Malaysian Attorney-General Kadir Yusof, Malaysian Home Affairs Minister Ismail bin Dato Abdul Rahman, Barker and Goh. The final version, which included a few amendments and insertions, were typed late that night and signed by Goh, Barker, Razak, Ismail, Malaysian Finance Minister Tan Siew Sin and Malaysian Minister for Works V. T. Sambanthan well after midnight.[20]
After Lee was shown the final signed separation documents by Barker, he called Toh and Rajaratnam in Singapore to meet him the following morning. Arriving in Kuala Lumpur separately on 7 August, both Toh and Rajaratnam were particularly distraught when Lee told them of the news, and were not willing to sign the agreement.[21] However, a letter written by the Tunku to Toh stressing the former’s irrevocable decision – that there was “absolutely no other way out” – left them with no choice.[22] Realising that their persistence to pursue the status quo could well mean bloodshed, both Toh and Rajaratnam reluctantly signed.[23]
Lee then flew back to Singapore on 8 August on a Royal Malaysian Air Force (RMAF) jet so that he could get the separation agreement signed by the rest of his cabinet members. Two other individuals were called upon to assist with the task to meet the 9 August deadline: John Le Cain, the Police Commissioner, to ensure law and order, and Stanley Stewart, head of the Singapore Civil Service, to prepare and print the special gazette and proclamation of independence notices.[24] The Government Printing Office (GPO) had to recall its staff overnight, and to keep the lid on the separation, Stewart locked the GPO.[25] Encoded messages on the separation were also dispatched to the British, Australian and New Zealand prime ministers in the wee hours.[26]
Similarly in Kuala Lumpur on 8 August, things also moved swiftly as Razak had to ensure that everything was ready for the Tunku’s address to the federal parliament the following day, where he would move a bill to amend the constitution that would provide for Singapore’s departure from the Federation. Razak was also waiting for the fully signed separation agreement from Singapore to allay possible suggestions that Singapore was expelled from Malaysia. Only when the RMAF craft sent to Singapore to collect the document bearing the signatures of the entire Singapore cabinet arrived in Kuala Lumpur did he share the purpose of the 9 August parliament session with the chief ministers, mentri besars and state rulers in the Federation.[27]
The Birth of Singapore
The proclamation declaring Singapore’s independence was announced on Radio Singapore at 10:00 am on 9 August 1965.[28] Simultaneously in Kuala Lumpur, the Tunku announced the separation to the federal parliament. He then moved a resolution to enact the Constitution of Malaysia (Singapore Amendment) Bill, 1965, that would allow Singapore to leave Malaysia and become an independent and sovereign state. The bill was passed with a 126-0 vote and given the royal assent by the end of the day.[29] Singapore TV also aired the press conference called by Lee at 4:30 p.m.[30] During the press conference, Lee explained why the separation was inevitable despite his long-standing belief in the merger, and called on the people to remain firm and calm. Filled with emotions and his eyes brimming with tears, Lee had given Singaporeans a glimpse of their leader’s “moment of anguish”.[31]
Many rallied behind the news of the separation with relief although the manner of its announcement came as a shock and was initially greeted with disappointment and regret.[32] It was slightly less than two years ago that the people of Singapore had backed Lee’s merger through their votes in the September 1962 referendum.[33] However when merger came, the greater share of it was marked by constant differences and bitter political wrangling between leaders of the two nations.[34] Although all signs were pointing to trouble, very few were prepared for the dramatic end to Singapore’s union with Malaysia.
Sunday, 1 February 2015
Sunday, February 01, 2015
Exposing the Truth
,
Federation of Malaysia 16 September 1963
,
History
,
malaya
,
News
,
Sharing
,
Singapore
No comments
S’pore exited as it had no common market with Malaysia
Janadas Devan says Singapore made the move to go its own way because it saw no economic advantage in its merger with Malaya.
KUALA LUMPUR: If Singaporeans had allowed themselves to be cowed, they might still have been offered “one country, two systems” as late as August 1965.
“Fortunately, our forefathers were a pride of lions led by lions,” said Institute for Policy Analysis Director Janadas Devan, the son of former Singapore President Devan Nair, in a speech delivered at the Singapore Perspectives 2015 seminar on January 26.
Why does he recall this history?
“To remind ourselves there was nothing inevitable about our founding. What might have been and what has been point to one end, which is always present, the poet T S Eliot wrote,” he cited. “A people who forget their history will perish. I fear we might well become such a people. “
Raised in clover and accustomed to success, our elite especially have come to regard themselves as self-created, self-sustaining, self-perpetuating entities, he added. “What is is; they have no antecedents; history is bunk. So they come to believe, for instance, that we were never vulnerable, that vulnerabilities are myths, lies. Only a people who forget their history can delude themselves so.”
Again, he wants to consider that “we came close to getting one country, two systems before we stumbled on Separation. All our founding leaders initially believed Singapore couldn’t survive without a hinterland. They only abandoned the idea when it became obvious a common market with Malaysia wasn’t on the cards”.
Singapore saw (eventually) no economic advantage in merger (with Malaya), argues Janadas. “The reason why we joined Malaysia in the first place, was because of believing that a small island state could not survive without a hinterland.”
He cited an example: the Economic Development Board (EDB) had to seek permission from Kuala Lumpur to award pioneer certificates to prospective investors in Singapore, entitling them to tax-free status for five to 10 years. “In the two years we were in Malaysia, only two out of 69 such applications were approved, and one came with so many restrictions it amounted to a rejection.”
As another example, he recalls that Dr. Goh Keng Swee recounts in his Oral History a conversation he had with a World Bank expert who was advising Kuala Lumpur and Singapore on the common market.
“Suppose [the Malaysian Finance Minister Tan Siew Sin] does not play the game and the common market does not get off the ground – what happens?” Dr. Goh recalls asking the World Bank expert.
The expert answered presciently thus: “In that event, Mr Minister, it’s not the common market which should be in danger; the whole concept of Malaysia would be in danger.”
“Even then, it hadn’t occurred to them the world could be our hinterland; or if it had occurred to some of them, they didn’t as yet know how to give effect to that vision,” continued Janadas. “The notion of a ‘global city’ was some years away; globalisation decades. That we could be a hub in a variety of fields, that MNCs could be our ticket, and that we could be the centre of this, that or the other – none was obvious.”
“The one constant in our history has been our audacity.”
It means the paths not taken as well as the paths taken remain always possibilities – now, he stressed. “It means the risks avoided, the successes attained, the dangers circumvented, the achievements chanced upon — all are never ever wholly voided or erased. It means our history — for 50 years now a triumphant arc that bent always toward sunlit uplands and fresh pastures — and that our history can still turn tragic.”
What might have been and what has been point to one end, he reiterates, which is always present. “The one constant in our history has been our audacity.”
He prays that it may always remain so.
Janadas’ speech must be read in full for a better appreciation, and again, read together with another at the same seminar by Bilahari Kausikan, Ambassador-at-Large and former permanent secretary at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. He explained why being a small country in South-East Asia was not as simple as it sounds for Singapore.
Friday, 26 September 2014
Friday, September 26, 2014
18 Points
,
20 Points
,
Agreement of Malaysia
,
Brunei
,
Exposing the Truth
,
Fact
,
Federation of Malaysia 16 September 1963
,
Jeffrey G.Kitingan
,
North Borneo
,
Sabah
,
Sarawak
,
Singapore
No comments
Damage to Sabah irreversible
KOTA KINABALU: Bingkor Assemblyman Jeffrey Kitingan said Putrajaya was refusing to accept the reality that Sabah lost more than it gained from the Federation of Malaysia and that the damage done was almost irreversible.
Kitingan said Brunei and Singapore were examples for Sabah and Sarawak to move forward.
“It is as though Sabah has never had it so good or any better and that if the state had not joined Malaysia there would be no progress and development, ” said Kitingan, who is also the Star Sabah Chief.
He said these arguments were weak because Sabah was now the second poorest in the Federation, relegating Sarawak to being the poorest.
He also took exception to statements that an independent Sabah would be eaten up by its neighbours or infiltrated by Islamic State (IS) militants bent on taking over the state and creating an Islamic caliphate.
“Putrajaya is in a state of denial. They just refuse to accept the stark reality that Sabah lost more than it gained from the Federation of Malaysia,” he said.
Kitingan said the damage suffered by Sabah and Sabahans was almost irreversible and probably beyond repair.
“The demography has been totally changed with population re-engineering and reverse ethnic-cleansing through Project IC/Mahathir.
“We have lost our political franchise to the illegals on the electoral rolls.
“Is it any wonder that the MNLF and Abu Sayyaf in the southern Philippines are supporting IS militants when our own Prime Minister has called for Umno members to follow the example of the IS militants?” he asked.
Kitingan said the security nightmare in Sabah was a monster created by the Federal government’s covert operations in southern Philippines to train and arm Muslim insurgents, including the MNLF and Abu Sayyaf.
He said all this would be evident if the Royal Commission of Inquiry report was released.
He added that the Federal government could not be trusted with the security of Sabah.
Thursday, 18 September 2014
Thursday, September 18, 2014
Agreement of Malaysia
,
British
,
Exposing the Truth
,
Fact
,
Federation of Malaysia 16 September 1963
,
History
,
malaya
,
North Borneo
,
Sabah
,
Sabah Sarawak Union (SSU)
,
Sarawak
,
Singapore
,
SSKM
,
UK
3
comments
SABAH DAN SARAWAK
![]() |
| Lord Lansdowne |
Tuan, -Apabila Perlembagaan Persekutuan Malaysia sedang digubal peruntukan khas tertentu telah dimasukkan untuk melindungi kepentingan Sarawak dan Sabah berbanding dengan negeri-negeri Kerajaan Persekutuan di Kuala Lumpur.
Antaranya ialah; bahawa kawalan imigresen seharusnya berada di dalam tangan Kerajaan Borneo, dan bahasa Melayu, yang ditetapkan sebagai bahasa kebangsaan Malaysia, tidak seharusnya dibuat bahasa rasmi kedua-dua wilayah di mana orang Melayu membentuk minoriti kecil penduduk.
Ia adalah membimbangkan untuk melihat, dari laporan Koresponden Khas anda dari Jesselton pada 23 Ogos, kedua-dua hak istimewa ini telah dimansuhkan; dan kita tertanya-tanya berapa banyak lagi penggunaan "batang besar", yang disebut oleh wartawan anda telah hilang.
Saya ingin menambah bahawa sebagai perlindungan tambahan terhadap apa-apa tindakan cadangan telah dibuat bahawa hak untuk menarik diri dari Persekutuan hendaklah ditulis ke dalam Perlembagaan. Cadangan ini tidak diterima oleh Tuan Lansdowne, Pengerusi Suruhanjaya, atas sebab bahawa mana-mana Negara yang menyertai persekutuan secara sukarela mempunyai hak intrinsik untuk menarik diri mengikut kemahuan mereka bila-bila masa, dan oleh itu tidak perlu untuk memasukkannya ke dalam Perlembagaan.
Dengan latar belakang ini, ia adalah mengejutkan untuk mendengar cadangan merest penentuan sendiri mungkin dengan salah satu daripada wilayah-wilayah Borneo disambut dengan laungan "pengkhianatan" dan ancaman tindakan balas.
Kerajaan pusat di Kuala Lumpur mesti belajar untuk melayan Sarawak dan Sabah sebagai rakan kongsi dan bukan sebagai orang suruhan. Perubahan sikap yang munasabah akan pergi jauh untuk memelihara Persekutuan dan juga membolehkan Singapura untuk menyertai semula.
Yang benar,
C.W.DAWSON.
Old Forge, Heyshott, Midhurst, Sussex
Thursday, September 18, 2014
Agreement of Malaysia
,
British
,
Exposing the Truth
,
Federation of Malaysia 16 September 1963
,
History
,
malaya
,
Sabah
,
Sarawak
,
Singapore
,
UK
No comments
SARAWAK AND SABAH
Sir,-When the Constitution of Federation of Malaysia was being drafted certain special provision were included to safeguard the interests of Sarawak and Sabah vis-a-vis the Federal Government in Kuala Lumpur
Among these were; that the control of immigration should be in the hands of the Bornean Governments, and that the Malay language, prescribed as the national language of Malaysia, should not be made the official language of these two territories where the Malays form a small minority of the population.
It is disturbing to see, from the report of your Special Correspondent from Jesselton on August 23, that both these privileges have already been abolished; and one wonders how much further the use of the "big stick", mentioned by your correspondent has gone.
I may add that as an added safeguard against such action a suggestion was made that the right to secede from the Federation should be written into the Constitution. This suggestion was not accepted by Lord Lansdowne, the Chairman of the Commission concerned, on the ground that any State Voluntarily entering a federation had an intrinsic rights to secede at will, and that it was therefore unnecessary to include it in the Constitution.
Against this background it is startling to hear the merest suggestion of possible secession by one of the Borneo territories greeted with cries of "treachery" and threat of retaliation.
The central government in Kuala Lumpur must learn to treat Sarawak and Sabah as partners not as Vassals. A reasonable change of attitude would go far to preserve the Federation and even make it possible for Singapore to rejoin it.
Yours faithfully,
C.W.DAWSON.
Old Forge, Heyshott, Midhurst, Sussex
What Singapore can learn from Scotland’s referendum – Tan Wu Meng
Today, September 18, 2014, Scotland will hold a referendum on independence from the rest of the United Kingdom.
A year ago, the pro-independence “Yes” campaign was lagging behind. This has since narrowed to a dead heat, with a “Yes” majority being a very real possibility.
British Prime Minister David Cameron, leader of the opposition Ed Miliband and Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg have vigorously campaigned in a cross-party effort to keep the UK together.
Even the prime minister’s questions (PMQs) session, an important part of UK political culture, has been affected – Cameron and Miliband have skipped PMQs to campaign in Scotland.
Scottish independence would have deep implications for Scotland and the rest of the UK.
For some time, the UK’s international standing has surpassed its tangible military and economic reach. Through a combination of international partnerships, cultural soft power and afterglow from the post-Empire and Cold War years, the UK has been able to punch above its weight.
This stature will be much diminished if Scotland separates, the sum of sundered parts adding up to less than what was whole. The UK-America trans-Atlantic relationship will be affected as well.
Separation would be traumatic. Custody of natural resources and strategic assets could be disputed for many years.
An independent Scotland’s fiscal and defence situation would pose problems on both sides of the border. For instance, what would become of the submarine-based Trident, the UK’s strategic nuclear deterrent, which is based in Scotland? The choice of Scotland’s currency would also have implications for investments there and London’s status as a financial centre could also be hurt.
But independence can bring opportunity, too. Self-government would help the Scottish people’s policy preferences find clearer expression, without the overriding influence of the wider UK.
Small countries have started with even less and succeeded amid stiffer odds – as Singapore did, despite independence being thrust upon us in 1965.
A close call
Whatever the merits, why would so many in Scotland countenance the drastic step of independence? Each voter will have his or her own views and sentiments, each campaign its issues, but broader themes emerge, too.
The referendum question, “Should Scotland be an independent country?”, is loaded language. The word “independence” carries a positive connotation, but it leaves aside complexities of “how” and “what happens next”. In this context, a simple word such as “yes” adds momentum, due to its subconscious psychological cachet. Even the pro-unity campaigners have recognised this – hence their use of catchy slogans such as BetterTogether.
Scotland’s referendum will not have compulsory voting. This introduces an additional hurdle for campaigners. When voting is optional, it is not enough to win support – one’s supporters must find motivation and the will to show up at the ballot box.
Voters with strong views and deep-seated feelings are more likely to turn up. In a close contest under such conditions, emotion can overrule reason – the angry vote against a bitter yesterday, the passionate vote of beliefs made manifest or the inspired vote in the hope of a better tomorrow.
Identity also plays a key role, especially when it fuels emotions. The separate Scottish identity has deep-seated origins, but more could have been done by successive UK governments to minimise divisiveness.
Lessons for Singapore
Although the country is halfway around the world, Scotland’s experience has relevance for Singapore.
By playing to strong emotions, hot-button issues and identity, it is possible for an astute political competitor to whittle down a significant incumbent lead over a few months. The pro-unity campaign in Scotland enjoyed a 60-40 lead barely a year ago. Analysts are now seriously considering the possibility of a loss.
In Scotland, the pro-unity platform, citing track records, policy logic and long-term thinking, has found limited traction. Successful campaigns will be those able to connect with emotion as well as reason: inspiring people to give of their best, while feeling deeply the gravity of what is at stake.
In a political campaign, the crafting of words is crucial, whatever the language. Words have cadence and rhythm. They carry the weight of context and history. Language frames a discussion for speakers, respondents and observers, for better or for worse.
Identity matters, too – how people see themselves and the lenses through which they see others. Communal and ideological forces have not gone away in the era of globalisation.
It will be more important for public- and private-sector leaders to engage individuals with diverse identities, while drawing together to find common ground and higher purpose.
Amid diversity, our Singaporean society must remain inclusive. Each of us has a unique identity: who we are, what we do, how we became ourselves. But whatever our race, language, religion, gender, sexual orientation, ability, personal beliefs or socio-economic station in life, we must still see ourselves as Singaporeans in shared humanity.
We are too small a country for individuals to declare themselves islands and be set apart from the rest of society. We can be great enough a nation to accommodate diversity while having a shared purpose. – Today Online, September 18, 2014.
Wednesday, 10 September 2014
Wednesday, September 10, 2014
Brunei
,
Exposing the Truth
,
Fact
,
History
,
malaya
,
Sabah
,
Sarawak
,
Singapore
No comments
Bukti bahawa Sabah (North Borneo) dan Sarawak adalah sebuah Negara!
Wang kertas yang pernah digunakan suatu ketika dulu... Ia membuktikan bahawa Sarawak, Borneo Utara (North Borneo/Sabah), Brunei dan Persekutuan Malaya merupakan negara yang berasingan... Dan konsep ini tidak ubah seperti penggunaan EURO hari ini oleh negara kesatuan Eropah.
Ini bukan bermakna hari ini Sarawak dan Borneo Utara turun taraf kepada "negeri" dalam Persekutuan Malaysia yang mana negeri itu menjadi setaraf Negeri dalam Persekutuan Malaya sebelum 1963. Kerajaan Persekutuan Malaysia telah MENGHINA KEDAULATAN NEGARA SARAWAK DAN NEGARA BORNEO UTARA dengan merendahkan taraf kedua-dua negara setelah penyingkiran Negara Singapura yang telah bersama-sama membentuk PERSEKUTUAN MALAYSIA.
Penghinaan melalui pelbagai polisi pusat seperti MEDIA (serangan politik ke atas stesen NTV7 sebagai contoh..), Undang-undang serta Polisi Pendidikan, Hasil bumi dan seterusnya...
Dum Spiro Spero | Pergo Et Perago
Source: Abdul Halim Hamdian
Wednesday, September 10, 2014
Agreement of Malaysia
,
Exposing the Truth
,
Fact
,
Federation of Malaysia 16 September 1963
,
History
,
malaya
,
Singapore
No comments
What is it about the Singapore/Malaya merger and Operation Coldstore?
The Online Citizen speaks with Dr. Thum Ping Tjin, a historian on the merger of Singapore and Malaya along with Operation Coldstore which can be said to be a period of white terror of our country. He has researched extensively and have been documenting the unclassified documents that have been recently released by the British Government on the two topics.
in one of his talks and one of many slides of the unclassified documents.
Q: What is “Merger”?
A: On 16 September 1963, the Federation of Malaya, and the British colonies of Singapore, North Borneo, and Sarawak merged to form Malaysia.
Q: Why did merger happen?
A: Before 1945, there was only one Malaya, which included twelve states: the four Federated Malay states (Selangor, Perak, Pahang, and Negri Sembilan), the five Unfederated Malay states (Johor, Kedah, Kelantan, Perlis, and Terengganu), and the three Straits Settlements (Penang, Malacca, and Singapore). People moved freely up and down the country from the northern tip of Perlis to the southern tip of Singapore. Singapore to Malaya was like New York to the USA: the commercial, artistic, and cultural capital. From the late 19th to the mid 20th century, people seeking their fortune moved to Singapore.
In 1945, Singapore was divided from the rest of Malaya. People on both sides of the causeway viewed the division of Malaya into two as highly artificial. Families were divided. Malayans on both sides of the new border thus hoped for reunification.
Reflecting this, every political party in post-war Singapore was committed to the eventual reunification of Singapore with the rest of Malaya. In both the 1955 and 1959 general elections, all parties publicly committed themselves to merger. Merger was the genuine democratic wish of the overwhelming majority of Singapore’s people.
The British also deeply desired merger as it would mean that their commercial and strategic interests in Singapore, including the critical naval base, would be placed under the control of a reliably friendly, pro-British UMNO government. A democratic Singapore with a representative government was likely to move away from Britain and pursue a much more independent path.
Q: Why was Singapore separated to begin with?
A: Colonial Politics. Before World War II, Malaya at the time was roughly 43% Malay and 43% Chinese. After the war, the British were resolved to leave their colonies, but they needed to leave friendly governments behind to ensure their strategic and economic interests would be protected. In Malaya, to guarantee the cooperation of the conservative Malay politicians, as well as to protect their military bases in Singapore, the British split off the Chinese-dominated Singapore from the rest of Malaya, while continuing to rule Singapore as a crown colony. This left the rest of Malaya as around 60% Malay, allowing conservative Malay politicians to comfortably dominate the country. In return, they protected and supported British interests in the Federation.
Q: So why would the Federation politicians change their minds and reunify with Singapore in 1963?
A: Again, politics, this time that of the Malay leadership in the Federation. They actually didn’t want to reunify. From independence in 1957, Federation Prime Minister Tunku Abdul Rahman grew less and less enthusiastic about Singapore. Bringing Singapore back in would have jeopardized UMNO’s political dominance. Thus, until 1961, everyone in the Federation and Singapore referred to merger as a vague aspiration that was “five to ten years away”.
Q: What happened in 1961 that made the Tunku change his mind so quickly?
A: Yet again: politics, this time, in Singapore. Singapore’s PAP won the 1959 elections and formed the government. But the leadership’s inexperience showed, and they made a lot of mistakes in their first year. They moved away from the progressive platform on which they had been elected, failing to fulfil a number of election promises. To compound this, they refused to admit their mistakes, and acted in a very arrogant and smug manner. Thus, the British and the PAP’s backbenchers grew very frustrated with the government, and the popularity of the PAP government declined heavily from 1959-60.
As a result of this, the PAP began to fracture from internal arguments. The PAP leadership sought to remove the highest source of dissent, Minister for National Development Ong Eng Guan, but the dismissal of such a popular politician only added to the PAP’s woes.
Meanwhile, the PAP backbenchers, grassroots, and trade union leaders, who were much more progressive and liberal than the more conservative PAP leadership, were unhappy with the leadership’s mistakes and arrogance. The biggest issue, however, was over the continued detention of political prisoners. The PAP’s progressive left wing kept reminding Lee Kuan Yew and Goh Keng Swee that they had promised to work for the release of the political prisoners who were detained by the Lim Yew Hock government in 1956 and 1957. This promise was a major plank of the PAP election platform, and had also been personally promised by Lee to the trade union leaders in 1959. Naturally, this group – the PAP’s progressive left – grew increasingly upset when Lee refused to commit himself to working for the release of the remaining political prisoners.
Q: Wait a moment. Why was the continued detention of political prisoners such a big issue to the PAP’s progressive wing?
A: The PAP’s progressive left all grew up faced with systematic discrimination, violence, and repression from the state. First the colonial government from the 1930s, then the Japanese occupation from 1942-45, then again the British from 1945 onwards. Singapore in this period was an extremely discriminatory place, and the use of violence and terror against the people of Singapore by the state was routine. If you were not English-educated and wealthy in Singapore, you were a second-class citizen in your own country. The colonial state could come and throw you out of your home and destroy your life at any time, without proof, if they were convinced that you were an enemy of the government.
In 1956, the colonial government easily stopped Singapore’s incipient civil rights movement by simply arresting and detaining all of its leaders without trial. As a result, the progressive left realized that simply winning elections was not enough. In order for Singapore to have self-determination, a democratically elected, fully representative government of Singapore must control the internal security laws. It’s important to note here that they did not call for the abolition of the laws, only that they were controlled by a democratically elected, fully representative government of Singapore.
Q: So you’re saying what happened is that by 1961, Lee and the PAP government were growing more unpopular and were not confident of maintaining their electoral base. How does this relate to merger?
A:Since his own party’s base was not supporting him, Lee secretly turned to the Malayan Communist Party for support. However, despite their promised support, Lee lost two by-elections in Hong Lim and Anson. Lee realised that the MCP was either unwilling or unable to command popular support. He also turned to the British for support. The British did not want to see a truly progressive left wing party win the next election, but felt that they could not openly intervene in the political process without opening themselves to accusations of attempting to rig the democratic process.
To win the next election, Lee needed an achievement he could campaign on. The only popular desire he could deliver quickly was the achievement of merger. The British already wanted merger, but the Tunku didn’t. Thus, to get the Tunku on board, they told the Tunku that the PAP’s unpopularity was a sign that the island would soon be taken over by communists, and only the Tunku could save the island by taking it over. The British also urged the Tunku to accept merger, and offered the inclusion of North Borneo and Sarawak. This would dilute the influence of Singapore’s Chinese in Federation politics, as well as give the Federation access to Borneo’s vast natural resources. Eventually, after much persuading, pleading, and bargaining, the Tunku agreed to merge.
Q: Finally, we have merger. How did everyone react?
A: They didn’t know. Merger negotiations were originally done in secret. Then, in late June 1961, news leaked that Lee and Goh had been secretly negotiating merger with the Federation and British. Singapore erupted in shock, and PAP’s backbenchers and members demanded to know what was going on. They suspected that Singapore was simply trading one colonial master (the British) for another (the Federation). Rather than answer to his party, Lee chose to purge the PAP of the progressive left. The progressive left went on to form the Barisan Sosialis in August 1961.
Q: Okay. What does this have to do with Operation Coldstore?
A: The Tunku was openly worried about the impact of the Barisan Sosialis in a unified Malaysia. He feared their organisational skills and the inspired, “talismanic” leadership of Lim Chin Siong. He thus demanded that Singapore’s political opposition be arrested as a condition of merger.
The British didn’t want to conduct arrests because they already had a poor reputation around the world for colonial abuses. Reports out of Kenya and Nyasaland (Malawi) in 1959 had embarrassed them. Such acts would also have been very unpopular in the UK, jeopardising the government in the next election.
Lee wanted the arrests to be launched after merger, so that the federal government in Kuala Lumpur would take the responsibility. He feared that arresting such popular politicians would severely damage his popularity in Singapore.
Q: Hold on. Lee did not want to use detentions against the political opposition?
A: To be precise, he did not want to take responsibility for the arrests. By launching them after merger, the federal government would take responsibility. However, the Tunku told him that it was a condition of merger that the arrests take place before merger, so that the Internal Security Council comprising the British, Singapore and Federation governments would share joint responsibility. Lee was thus forced to agree.
Q: But this was August 1961. What happened between then and Operation Coldstore in January 1963?
A: The British did not want the arrests, so they stalled and played for time. They repeatedly pointed out there was no evidence of any violent communist subversion in Singapore. If they arrested people without evidence, their international and domestic reputation would suffer.
Q: So the British were happy to use detention without trial in Singapore in the 1940s and 50s, but the moment it might affect their international reputation and make them lose an election in the UK, they baulked?
A: Yes.
Q: Also, hadn’t the British told the Tunku that Singapore was on the verge of being taken over by communists? So how could they justify not taking action?
A: They were in a tricky situation. They had to insist there were communists in Singapore, while simultaneously saying there was no evidence to arrest them. Also, they pointed out that it was not illegal to be communist in Singapore.
Q: It wasn’t?
A: No. Just as in Britain, in Singapore you couldn’t arrest someone just on the basis of what they believed. You had to show they were breaking the law, for example by planning violence.
In response, the Tunku and Lee worked hard to find some evidence on which the arrests could be conducted. But when this evidence was given to MI5 in April 1962, MI5 rejected it and basically said that it was entirely ‘surmise’ – that is, speculation, not real evidence.
Q: MI5? As in, James Bond?
A: Not quite. Bond is MI6, the foreign arm of Her Majesty’s Secret Service. MI5 is the domestic arm. Remember, Singapore was still part of the British Empire.
Q: Right. So how did Coldstore eventually happen?
A: The Brunei rebellion broke out on 8 December 1962. The Barisan issued a statement the next day declaring ‘a popular uprising against British colonialism and must command the support of all genuine anticolonialists’.
The British, Federation, and PAP seized upon this as an excuse to arrest the Barisan leadership. By endorsing the rebellion, the British could plausibly argue that the Barisan were endorsing violent subversion in Singapore, and thus the arrests had to be made for security and safety.
Ironically, the evidence that MI5 had said was speculation in April 1962 was now quickly recycled to use as a legal basis for the arrests.
Q: Why on earth would the Barisan issue this statement?
A: Several reasons. Firstly, they had issued similar statements before – most recently in January 1962 when they had supported the nationalist freedom movement of West Irian. When this was moved in the Legislative Assembly, it was supported unanimously, including by the PAP. Thus, they had consistently supported violent anti-colonial resistance, and did not see this as any different. They had issued statements supporting revolution in Aden, Cyprus, Algeria, and other colonies.
Second, it was a matter of principle. Lim Chin Siong argued that you can’t be anti-colonial, then stop being anti-colonial when it means you’ll get arrested. That just makes you a hypocrite.
Finally, I think the Barisan were simply politically inexperienced and naïve. Remember, their leadership was composed of trade unionists and doctors, unlike the PAP’s leadership, which was full of lawyers and civil servants. The Barisan saw the world much more in terms of right and wrong, rather than in terms of rules and institutions.
Of course, the British, Federation, and PAP leaders had already decided the arrests would happen, so it didn’t really matter what the Barisan chose to do. For example, the Sarawak United People’s Party condemned the rebellion, but the British colonial government still arrested many of them.
Q: So this led to Operation Coldstore?
A: Yes, Operation Coldstore was scheduled for 16 December 1962.
Q: Wait, Operation Coldstore happened on 2 February 1963!?
A: The original Operation Coldstore collapsed when, at the last minute, Lee Kuan Yew inserted fifteen extra names of his political opponents into the arrest list. When the Tunku found out, he furiously accused Lee of manipulating the arrests for his own political gain and refused to allow the arrests to go ahead. Neither man would back down, so the arrests collapsed.
Q: Why did Lee do that?
A: Remember, he was worried about the political consequences of the detentions. So he inserted the names to ensure that even if his own popularity collapsed after the arrests, there would be no real alternative to the PAP at the next election.
Q: So how did Operation Coldstore get resurrected?
A: It took two months of shuttle diplomacy by the British. Finally, Lee was given two major concessions. The first is that the post-arrest press release would refer to Malaysia, allowing Lee to argue that merger depended on the arrests, and thus his hands were tied. The second, and much more controversial concession, is that Lee was allowed to insert three names (out of the fifteen) into the arrest list.
Operation Coldstore then went ahead in the early morning of 2 February 1963. The first day, 111 people were arrested; by April, 133 people had been arrested.
Q: Okay. So let me get this straight. The primary purpose of merger was for political gain, not to reunify a divided nation?
A: Lee Kuan Yew’s and the PAP’s unpopularity provided the opportunity and drove the timing of merger. Without it, merger might not have ever happened – it certainly was growing more and more unlikely in the immediate future as the Tunku and other UMNO leaders grew more and more opposed to it. For Lee and the PAP, merger was an issue on which he could campaign and win the 1963 elections, and for the British, merger guaranteed the protection of their commercial and strategic interests, including their naval base. They convinced the Tunku and Federation leaders to agree by giving them the Borneo states and arguing that merger would allow them to reduce political instability that might arise from Singapore electing a progressive left government. But the condition the Federation imposed was the arrest of Singapore’s political opposition. Thus, throughout all this, the calculations were chiefly political.
Q: And I guess this helps explain why Singapore separated from Malaysia in 1965?
A: Well, here’s a question for you: if the Federation’s and PAP’s rationale for merger and the creation of Malaysia was to neutralise Singapore’s political opposition, then once the opposition was gone, what was the rationale for both parties to stay together?
Dr. PJ Thum is a Singaporean academic who teaches history at the University of Oxford. A Harvard graduate in East Asian Studies. And for trivia, did you know PJ swam for Singapore at every level including the 1996 Atlanta Olympics? He is also the first Oxford graduate and first Singaporean to swim across the English Channel in August 2005, completing the journey despite inclement weather in 12 hours and 24 minutes.
Thursday, 4 September 2014
Thursday, September 04, 2014
Agreement of Malaysia
,
Exposing the Truth
,
Fact
,
Federation of Malaysia 16 September 1963
,
History
,
Lee Kuan Yew
,
malaya
,
North Borneo
,
Sabah
,
Sarawak
,
Singapore
No comments
INCORRECT ANALYSIS OF SINGAPORE SEPARATION
Please read first this article before you continue to read the article below by just clicking this title story Percubaan Sabah untuk Keluar dari Malaysia dulu BUKAN KHABAR ANGIN... TAPI ITU ADALAH BENAR!!!
What this book is talking about is really the UMNO machinations in tightening colonial control of Sabah through puppets like Harris Salleh- after they used up Donald Stephens and Mustapha.
However some of the analysis were over simplistic such as:
"In mid-July, there were racial clashes between the Chinese and Malays in Singapore which led to the Tunku to decide that Singapore should be booted out. On 9 August 1965,"
"Racial clashes" was not the real reason for separation of Singapore from UMNO's colonising clutches.
The UMNOcrats led by Razak (more than the lame duck PM Tunku Abdul Rahman) feared that the Singaporeans under Lee Kuan Yew would be a serious challenge to their power and hold on Malaya and also Sabah and Sarawak. They feared that LKY could unite all the anti-UMNO forces and capture state power. They simply “kicked out “ Singapore without consulting Sabah and Sarawak as they feared these colonies would follow suit. They were that sneaky. It was our equivalence of “Pearl Harbour”. However, by doing this they actually tore apart the concept of “Malaysia” which was to comprise 4 countries and not 3. This was not the Malaysia deal!
LKY was smart enough to agree to take back Singapore because if he did not it would have became another impoverished basket case country like Sabah and Sarawak and most important totally lose any say in their own destiny..and flooded with "illegals".
"Racial clashes" like May 13 Massacre in Kuala Lumpur used to justify Emergency Rule, was the justification for severing the links with S'pore.
After all the S'pore Malays did not flee in their thousands to Malaya and the causeway is a short run and if they had to they could have swum across....
We need to move our brains and ask did the S'pore Malays wanted to "riot" or was it the hidden hands of UMNO as in May 13 in massacring 30000 Malayan people as claimed by some.. Did Malayan Malays go and start clashes in Singapore as they did in Kuala Lumpur?
In the case of Sabah in 1985 there were bombings and other incidents but UMNO instead of wanting Sabah to separate used these as reason to tighten its control of Sabah!
UMNO's logic can swing 365 degrees but still support its action.
The best example is how the UMNO government signed the 20 Points Agreement with the Sabah (newly independent) Government and reneged by stages breaking all the promises and by stealth and by intimidation began to Islamise Sabah.
Prior to 1963 Sabah was a harmonious society tolerant of all religions and races. Unfortunately UMNO took advantage of and abused this tolerance by deliberately engineering the mass transmigration of Indonesian and Filipino Muslim to dominate Sabah people.
If we agree with the objectives of SSKM, we must unite with all like minded people here and in Sarawak to work to free Sabah and Sarawak from Malayan UMNO colonial rule!











