What if Singapore was still under the British rule?
-
What if the British did not grant the PAP the rights to rule Singapore?
What if the British continue to rule Singapore as what she did to Hong Kong untill 1997 before returning her to China?
Will Singapore be as success as Hong Kong or better?
Will Singaporeans enjoy better freedom under the British then under the PAP?
Will Singaporeans be much more prospers then our current situation?
Will Singapore fare much more better in terms of education, economic, freedom of press, strong human rights... then under the PAP rule?
Lastly, will we become second class citizens as what most Pro PAP supporters always make us to think so?
Frankly speaking, my own opinion is, i do think if the British still rule Singapore today, we might fare better in terms of Human rights, freedom of press, freedom of thought, and also we will continue to prospers because we are still the centre hub of the sea lane of South East Asia.
We are in a very safe enviroment because we dont have earth quake, typhoon, draught...etc.One word, we are safe from the natural diasaster.
And we might not be a second class citizen because look at Hong Kong, they enjoy much more freedom then us.Their governor care for their own people much more then our own PAP leaders.
I think we are second class citizens in terms of under the PAP rule and not under the British rule.
If given a choice, i still prefer we rule ourselves, but pledge ourselves to the British.Just like Canada and Australia.So that our leaders will not abuse their power over the citizens.
Just my own opinions.Sorry, i am not a pro colonist.I am not a British ball carriers.And i dont mean i wanted the British to rule Singapore again.
What i want to say in this thread is...., just for pure chat.So, hope you guys don't take it to heart if i offend anyone here! Thanks!!! -
what if......
-
Then CSJ will no longer be portrayed like a fool and somebody else here will be portrayed publicly as a fascist, not that he isn't one right now.
-
Thank goodness we aren't, otherwise we'd be so sick of Mr Bean re-runs on TV...!! -
Originally posted by maurizio13:Then CSJ will no longer be portrayed like a fool and somebody else here will be portrayed publicly as a fascist, not that he isn't one right now.
-
I think most Singaporeans dun mind singing "God save the Queen" as the national anthem.
-
lol...
From history :
"Singapore became a self-governing state in 1959 with Yusof bin Ishak its first Yang di-Pertuan Negara and Lee Kuan Yew its first Prime Minister. Following the 1962 Merger Referendum of Singapore, Singapore joined Malaya, along with Sabah and Sarawak, to form the Federation of Malaysia on 16 September 1963, but was expelled two years later after heated ideological conflict between the state's PAP government and the federal Kuala Lumpur government. Singapore officially gained sovereignty on 9 August 1965.[11] Yusof bin Ishak was sworn in as the first President of Singapore and Lee Kuan Yew remained prime minister."
From history, u should ask what if Singapore was still under Malaysia rule??? -
If Singapore was still under British rule, Singapore will have never been a state under Malaysia. So your scenario is not valid.Originally posted by ispyyy:lol...
From history :
"Singapore became a self-governing state in 1959 with Yusof bin Ishak its first Yang di-Pertuan Negara and Lee Kuan Yew its first Prime Minister. Following the 1962 Merger Referendum of Singapore, Singapore joined Malaya, along with Sabah and Sarawak, to form the Federation of Malaysia on 16 September 1963, but was expelled two years later after heated ideological conflict between the state's PAP government and the federal Kuala Lumpur government. Singapore officially gained sovereignty on 9 August 1965.[11] Yusof bin Ishak was sworn in as the first President of Singapore and Lee Kuan Yew remained prime minister."
From history, u should ask what if Singapore was still under Malaysia rule???
The 1955 election was the first lively political contest in Singapore's history. Automatic registration expanded the register of voters from 75,000 to over 300,000, and for the first time, it included large numbers of Chinese, who had manifested political apathy in previous elections. The Labor Front won 10 seats. The Peoples Action Party (PAP), which fielded four candidates, won three seats. David Marshall became Singapore's first Chief Minister on 6 April 1955, with a coalition government made up of his own Labor Front, the United Malays National Organization and the Malayan Chinese Association .
Marshall resigned on 6 June 1956, after the breakdown of constitutional talks in London on attaining full internal self government. Lim Yew Hock, Marshall's deputy and minister for Labor became the Chief Minister. The March 1957 constitutional mission to London led by Lim Yew Hock was successful in negotiating the main terms of a new Singapore Constitution. On 28 May 1958, the Constitutional Agreement was signed in London.
Self-government was attained in 1959. In May that year Singapore's first general election was held to choose 51 representatives to the first fully elected Legislative Assembly. The PAP won 43 seats, gleaning 53.4 percent of the total votes. On June 3, the new Constitution confirming Singapore as a self-governing state was brought into force by the proclamation of the Governor, Sir William Goode, who became the first Yang di-Pertuan Negara (Head of State). The first Government of the State of Singapore was sworn in on June 5, with Lee Kuan Yew as Singapore's first Prime Minister.
The PAP had come to power in a united front with the communists to fight British colonialism. The communists controlled many mass organizations, especially of workers and students. It was an uneasy alliance between the PAP moderates and the pro communists, with each side trying to use the other for its own ultimate objective--in the case of the moderates, to obtain full independence for Singapore as part of a non-communist Malaya; in the case of the communists, to work towards a communist take-over.
The tension between the two factions worsened from 1960 and led to an open split in l961, with the pro-communists subsequently forming a new political party, the Barisan Sosialis. The other main players in this drama were the Malayans, who, in 1961, agreed to Singapore's merger with Malaya as part of a larger federation. This was also to include British territories in Borneo, with the British controlling the foreign affairs, defense and internal security of Singapore.
The Malaysia Proposal
On 27 May 1961, the Malayan Prime Minister, Tunku Abdul Rahman, proposed closer political and economic co-operation between the Federation of Malaya, Singapore, Sarawak, North Borneo and Brunei in the form of a merger. The main terms of the merger, agreed on by him and Lee Kuan Yew, were to have central government responsibility for defense, foreign affairs and internal security, but local autonomy in matters pertaining to education and labor. A referendum on the terms of the merger held in Singapore on 1 September 1962 showed the people's overwhelming support for PAP's plan to go ahead with the merger.
Malaysia was formed on 16 September 1963, and consisted of the Federation of Malaya, Singapore, Sarawak and North Borneo (now Sabah). Brunei opted out. Indonesia and the Philippines opposed the merger. President Sukarno of Indonesia worked actively against it during the three years of Indonesian confrontation.
Independence
The merger proved to be short-lived. Singapore was separated from the rest of Malaysia on 9 August 1965, and became a sovereign, democratic and independent nation.
Independent Singapore was admitted to the United Nations on 21 September 1965, and became a member of the Common wealth of Nations on 15 October 1965. On 22 December 1965, it became a republic, with Yusof bin Ishak as the republic's first President.
Thereafter commenced Singapore's struggle to survive and prosper on its own. It also had to create a sense of national identity and consciousness among a disparate population of immigrants. Singapore's strategy for survival and development was essentially to take advantage of its strategic location and the favourable world economy.
Source: University of Texas -
Ya... from history, British never grant Singapore full independance in 1959Originally posted by maurizio13:Self-government was attained in 1959. In May that year Singapore's first general election was held to choose 51 representatives to the first fully elected Legislative Assembly. The PAP won 43 seats, gleaning 53.4 percent of the total votes. On June 3, the new Constitution confirming Singapore as a self-governing state was brought into force by the proclamation of the Governor, Sir William Goode, who became the first Yang di-Pertuan Negara (Head of State). The first Government of the State of Singapore was sworn in on June 5, with Lee Kuan Yew as Singapore's first Prime Minister.
The Malaysia Proposal
On 27 May 1961, the Malayan Prime Minister, Tunku Abdul Rahman, proposed closer political and economic co-operation between the Federation of Malaya, Singapore, Sarawak, North Borneo and Brunei in the form of a merger. The main terms of the merger, agreed on by him and Lee Kuan Yew, were to have central government responsibility for defense, foreign affairs and internal security, but local autonomy in matters pertaining to education and labor. A referendum on the terms of the merger held in Singapore on 1 September 1962 showed the people's overwhelming support for PAP's plan to go ahead with the merger.
Independence
The merger proved to be short-lived. Singapore was separated from the rest of Malaysia on 9 August 1965, and became a sovereign, democratic and independent nation.
The flow should be :
British (grant---> ) Malaysia proposal (request PAP to leave---> ) PAP
And that is y I say what if Singapore is still under malaysia rule.. >< -
well considering most singaporeans can't even understand or know what the national anthem is sayingOriginally posted by CoolMyth:I think most Singaporeans dun mind singing "God save the Queen" as the national anthem. -
Do you have any references to cite?Originally posted by ispyyy:Ya... from history, British never grant Singapore full independance in 1959
The flow should be :
British (grant---> ) Malaysia proposal (request PAP to leave---> ) PAP
And that is y I say what if Singapore is still under malaysia rule.. ><
Most of the references I come across states that Singapore have self governance from 1959, it became Malaysian Federation in 1961, thereafter it split up from Malaysia in 1965 to become independent again.
http://library.thinkquest.org/12405/20.htm -
I only remembered the ending line "God save the Queen".Originally posted by hisoka:well considering most singaporeans can't even understand or know what the national anthem is saying
Peharps due to EPL's popularity, I dare to bet that this anthem is the next well-known among Singaporeans after our national anthem. -
If the Brits ruled, he shouldn't have a chance to be a fascist. If he did exist as a fascist under Brits, you blame the Brits or him? or the queen?Originally posted by maurizio13:Then CSJ will no longer be portrayed like a fool and somebody else here will be portrayed publicly as a fascist, not that he isn't one right now. -
There will come a day, when people will post:
"What if Singapore was still under the PAP rule?" -
All this from a person who don't know the difference between experience and opinion. I am impressed.Originally posted by sgdiehard:If the Brits ruled, he shouldn't have a chance to be a fascist. If he did exist as a fascist under Brits, you blame the Brits or him? or the queen?
Not forgetting, making a generalisation that everybody stayed on to fight Mr. Chan, when asked for proof of such generalisation, chickens out and ask that I prove that nobody stayed. You made the generalisation, surely you must have proof of such claims. If you don't have, just say you don't have, don't be lame in asking your opponent to proof otherwise.
When you present your case to a judge, you stake a claim to something, make sure you have evidence (data) to substantiate the claim. Don't be dumbfounded when your opponent ask for such data, then proceed that he prove your case for you. Lamer!!!
I don't see any point explaining any logic to you, that's why I abandoned replying to you on a previous thread.
Have a good day!!!
Even dogs have their days!!! -
Here's a thoughtful site, with lots of articles from thoughtful people...
>> http://www.thinkcentre.org/index.cfm -
Originally posted by sgdiehard:None of the families involved in the Joo Chiat families moves away, why? because Joo Chiat is their home. Nuisance in the neighborhood can be a noisy dog, or dirty c o ckcroaches, the Chan family just happens to be a human nuisance. Applying your logic or mentality, nuisance such as dogs and c o ckcroaches are small problem, can handle, human is big problem, cannot handle, so quit. To the families in Joo Chiat, "this is my home, no quitting! we join force, we cooperate, want to make monkey faces, want to fight in court, we fong bei." See the difference?Originally posted by maurizio13:Secondly, don't make wide sweeping statements like "None of the families involved in the Joo Chiat families moves away". Have you done any research on this topic or have you any proof that none of them moved away. The houses in that particular enclave ranges from unit 130 to 152, with alphabets from "a" to "c "suffixing the numerical units. There could be 30 to 40 families living there. Can you say that Mr. Chan only offended 7 families? Is it not possible that there could be families not wanting to pursue due process chose to relocate instead? Can you say that no families relocated from that enclave within that 10 years time span? So unless you have conducted interviews with all the families there and provide reasonable proof that nobody relocated within that 10 years time frame, then you can proceed to make such sweeping statement. You can only say, 7 families decide to take legal action against Mr. Chan.
How lame can you get???Originally posted by sgdiehard:You prove to me that families have moved out because "all else fails, the only other alternative is to move away from him". This is your statment. -
Originally posted by maurizio13:All this from a person who don't know the difference between experience and opinion. I am impressed.
Not forgetting, making a generalisation that everybody stayed on to fight Mr. Chan, when asked for proof of such generalisation, chickens out and ask that I prove that nobody stayed. You made the generalisation, surely you must have proof of such claims. If you don't have, just say you don't have, don't be lame in asking your opponent to proof otherwise.
When you present your case to a judge, you stake a claim to something, make sure you have evidence (data) to substantiate the claim. Don't be dumbfounded when your opponent ask for such data, then proceed that he prove your case for you. Lamer!!!
I don't see any point explaining any logic to you, that's why I abandoned replying to you on a previous thread.
Have a good day!!!
Even dogs have their days!!! run out of words to explain your logic, or run out of logic?
You are having your day, I am not sure about other dogs. Not interested. -
Originally posted by maurizio13:How lame can you get??? what has Mr. Chan of Joo Chiat got to do with the Brits rule?
-
Originally posted by sgdiehard:Everywhere you go, there will be good experience, bad encounters, difficult people, helpful friends, moment of joy and sadness, feeling of achievement, sentiment of loss. What is narrow minded? a mind that only look at one aspect of the experience, good or bad. The only time when find a place where there is only joy and happiness, no sorrow no tears, you must have died and gone to heaven.Originally posted by maurizio13:You are trying to equate an experience and an opinion. Both have differing meanings. An experience (joy or sorrow) according to you is not subject to your control, during your lifetime, you have no choice in deciding what you want to experience more, experiences are of a stochastic nature, you cannot limit yourself to only joy and therefore according to you be narrow minded to a particular experience. You cannot walk along the streets and avoid bird sh|t if you wanted to. You don't say, you have a narrow minded experience, or do you?
Perspectives or opinions are of a personal nature, your personal views on issues. You can control your views by limiting yourself to one particular line of thought (you cannot limit experiences to only joy).
Don't try to mar the distinction between experiences and opinions, they are clearly different. And then proceed to justify your logic through such fallacious definitions.
I suppose everyone has the power to limit their experiences? Good! I want to limit my experiences to only joy in my life, I want the joy of winning TOTO every week.Originally posted by sgdiehard:no need to give lessons on definitions on words, just make sure you do not "limit experience to only joy or bitterness". It is so near, yet so far.
Dungu!!!
Tonto!!! -
No logic can penetrate that thick skull of yours.Originally posted by sgdiehard: what has Mr. Chan of Joo Chiat got to do with the Brits rule?
It's beyond repair.
Hehehe....
Enjoy your doggone day!!! -
Now this thread has really gone to the dogs.
-
agree wholeheartedly. and i hope more singaporeans can see this simple truthOriginally posted by joola74:Frankly speaking, my own opinion is, i do think if the British still rule Singapore today, we might fare better in terms of Human rights, freedom of press, freedom of thought, and also we will continue to prospers because we are still the centre hub of the sea lane of South East Asia.
We are in a very safe enviroment because we dont have earth quake, typhoon, draught...etc.One word, we are safe from the natural diasaster. -
Singapore will be worse off.....
Very simple....because the people who run and manage it, will be thinking of their own interests, ie the British will be thinking about their interests. First and foremost, above all, at the end of the day, they will put their own interests first, the interests of London. Everything will be put under that priority.
Hong Kong.....only when during 1990s, when Britain realized they were finally going to handover it to China, did they start to allow democracy. They were very clever, before handing Hong Kong to China, spring democracy around, knowing full well that China is having socialist system. Did they bother to 'grant' democracy to the people of Hong Kong previously, in 70s, 80s?
Hong Kong residents can have some kind of special passport, but cannot live and reside in Britain. What does this mean? Equality?
There is this kind of view around ....not just in Singapore but in many countries.....that Britain is somehow a benevolent colonialist......I think this view is a little bit naive.....yes they are quite good in management, they establish rule of law, and the treatment of the colonized people is less harsh than other colonialist nations.........but at the end of the day, they are still thinking of their own selfish interest, and they are still 'colonialist', and to think otherwise is naive.
So I think.....yes....definitely Singapore is better off as an independent.
Meat Pao. -
Hehehe....Originally posted by Meat Pao:Singapore will be worse off.....
Very simple....because the people who run and manage it, will be thinking of their own interests, ie the British will be thinking about their interests. First and foremost, above all, at the end of the day, they will put their own interests first, the interests of London. Everything will be put under that priority.
Hong Kong.....only when during 1990s, when Britain realized they were finally going to handover it to China, did they start to allow democracy. They were very clever, before handing Hong Kong to China, spring democracy around, knowing full well that China is having socialist system. Did they bother to 'grant' democracy to the people of Hong Kong previously, in 70s, 80s?
Hong Kong residents can have some kind of special passport, but cannot live and reside in Britain. What does this mean? Equality?
There is this kind of view around ....not just in Singapore but in many countries.....that Britain is somehow a benevolent colonialist......I think this view is a little bit naive.....yes they are quite good in management, they establish rule of law, and the treatment of the colonized people is less harsh than other colonialist nations.........but at the end of the day, they are still thinking of their own selfish interest, and they are still 'colonialist', and to think otherwise is naive.
So I think.....yes....definitely Singapore is better off as an independent.
Meat Pao.
I suppose LKY and LHL was thinking of your interest, when they decide to raise GST and their salaries.
If what you said is true, then Hong Kong as a British colony would not have been what it is today.
What do you mean by, "when Britain realized they were finally going to handover it to China, did they start to allow democracy"? You mean they didn't practice freedom of press, freedom of speech, freedom of religion & freedom of assembly? Did they not allow protest before 1997? You mean the press in Hong Kong pre-1997 is controlled? In Singapore, I think CSJ standing alone in the street to protest would also attract the attention of our friendly neighbourhood police.
In Hong Kong, on May 27, 1989, over 300,000 people gathered at Happy Valley Racecourse for a gathering called "Democratic songs dedicated for China." Many famous Hong Kong and Taiwan celebrities sang songs and expressed their support for the students in Beijing. On the following day May 28, a procession led by Martin Lee, Szeto Wah and other organization leaders, paraded through Hong Kong Island; 1.5 million participated.
If you mean that the final push for universal suffrage was a push for democracy to sabotage the Chinese government, you would have misunderstood the term colonial system.
Most people in this world are thinking about their own self interest, you think our F45c][57 leaders are thinking about us when they raise the GST, SCV, MRT, Utilities, HDB & SBS? You think they were thinking about us when they raise their own salaries. In non paraeto economic reality, nobody can be made better off without someone being made worse off. One pie can only be split into a certain number of pieces, with the leaders taking more of the pie, it would mean that the citizens have less pie to share amongst themselves.
In all respect, if the British was what you say they are, then Hong Kong would not have been what it is today.
Your analysis is baseless and unsubstantiated. Perhaps you could provide more detailed analysis with examples to substantiate your case, instead of using baseless claims pluck from the air.