Singapore was illegally purchased?
-
When Singapore joined Malaysia, there was a Referendum to determine the wishes of the people.
That was a bullshit referendum.
-
if idwar is still so adamant then let him be lah...anyway we all know he is talking bullshit...lets all leave this thread and let idwar go on and on and on himself...he can live in his own truly asia fantasy
-
I believe the real question is:
So what?
What is he going to do about it?
LOL, owned!
-
Originally posted by idwar:
Hello Gary 1910
I know my history. It's you who kapo the info on Sultan Hussein from Sammyboy forum originally posted by "thePlen." Shame on yourself without acknowleging your sources..........
If you had read my post correctly, I had already said the present Sultanate of Johore did not come from the original royal house. That is why I said they were descended from a Pirate who usurped the throne and then begged the British the recognise him as Sultan.
I also made it clear that the true sultan was the brother in Rhio. Raffles planted his elder brother Hussein on the throne. Hussein cannot sign away Singapore island. Neither can the Pirate-sultan of Johore who appeared later on the scene.
So there are 3 parties in this story:
1. Hussein - fake sultan appointed by Raffles
2. Temenggong who became Johore Pirate Sultan
3. Younger brother Ab. Rahman who remained in Rhio and never came to Singapore at all.
get the picture? I sometimes feel i am wasting my time trying to educate kids in here who think they know everything. Typical Singaporeans.....
======================
Anyway, my point is this: the documents relating to the birth of British Singapore was signed by a fake pretender Sultan who was placed on the throne by Raffles himself. So the document was illegal in the first place. Singapore's birth in 1819 /1824 was illegitimate.......Singapore was recognised only by the British and those locals who sold out to the British!
Even the separation on 1965 was suspect in legal terms........ it was the brainchild of the Tengku which was not endorsed in a Referendum on both sides of the causeway. There was no "self-determination" by the public. It was all a Wayang show by the politicians.
When Singapore joined Malaysia, there was a Referendum to determine the wishes of the people. How come when Singapore left, there was no Referendum?
LOL
I dun need to plargising anyone as this is available in historical records and the nets of the reputable sources( not wiki).
Based on the links I have provided tell that I dun need to and I have done my own research.
2ndly you neglect to mentioned that Tengku Abdul Rahman actually signed away the land of the old Johor-Riau Sultanate!!!!
Now let’s start at the beginning, both Tengku Hussein Shah & Tengku Abdul Rahman were not the sons of the royal consort of the late Sultan Mahmud III, they were illegitimate sons of the late Sultan., so if the royal consort had a son , they were not even be considered.
Now with the CONSPIRACY THEORY, when Tengku Hussein Shah went to Pahang for marriage, the late Sultan suddenly died.
With Tengku Hussein Shah absence from the court, Tengku Abdul Rahman with the help of the Bugis faction and the Dutch support , proclaimed himself as the new Sultan.
The problem was, the royal consort of the late Sultan did not passed to him the royal nobat etc i.e. recognising him as the new Sultan, the reasons was/were :
1) Tengku Hussein Shah should be the heir to the throne , after all he was the elder son, in fact many records said he was the rightful heir, not Tengku Abdul Rahman. Idwar , it seem that you know sh!t abt your own history!!!
http://themalaynobat.blogspot.com/2007/05/history-of-terengganu-nobat-story-of.html
http://infopedia.nl.sg/articles/SIP_3_2004-12-14.html
2) There was a rumour that the late Sultan was actually poisoned, i.e. assassinated.( This was even recorded in some history books)
Likely suspects were Tengku Abdul Rahman and his Bugis faction supporters.
Now come the interesting part which you neglect to mention, Tengku Abdul Rahman with the help of the Dutch, was able to get the nobet and forced Tengku Hussein Shah to exile in Riau.
After he had consolidated the court under him, he later signed away the land of the Johor-Riau Sultanate to the Dutch in 1818!!!!
(Some history here, the Dutch has signed a treaty with Sultanate in 1785 which put the Sultanate in the control of the Dutch, http://www.gimonca.com/sejarah/sejarah03.shtml, but in 1818, similar treaty was signed by Tengku Abdul Rahman with the Dutch again)
So when Tengku Hussein Shah signed a similar treaty with the British for SG, there was dispute of who was controlling the land of the Sultanate, British or the Dutch.
So in 1824, the British and the Dutch signed a treaty to split the old Johor-Riau Sultanate into 2 halves, one controlling each half.
After the treaty, Tengku Hussein Shah was bestowed the Sultan of new Johor Sultanate and he signed away all the land away, and Tengku Abdul Rahman was bestowed the Sultan of new Riau Sultanate and moved to Riau with all his supporters.
http://infopedia.nl.sg/articles/SIP_3_2004-12-14.html
So in conclusion,
1) Sultan Hussein Shah was the rightful heir to the old Johor-Riau Sultanate as many historical records have stated. Your statement that Sultan Abdul Rahman was the rightful heir to the old Johor-Riau Sultanate was not even supported by historical records. Further points at the below does not actually matter for this debate, they only reinforce my argument.
2) Both sons had actually signed away the land the old Sultanate( in 1818 and in 1824), so it is actually does not matter who was the rightful heir, they and their descendents dun own it anymore.
3) The facts that in 1824, British and the Dutch split the old Sultanate into 2 shown who were control of the land, and both Sultan Hussein Shah and Sultan Abdul Rahman agreed to it shown they were just puppet Sultans of the British and Dutch respectively, because both of them came into “power” with their help.
-
Double posts