10/17/2014

PANORAMA: A Big-Brush History of Singapore’s Battle for Merger



Personal Perspectives on:
“Flesh and Bone Reunite as One Body”: Singapore’s Chinese-speaking and their Perspectives on Merger
by Dr Thum Ping Tjin ©2012

The year 1962 was the worst of times, and the best had yet to herald. The Japanese were long gone, but the British had returned. China became Communist. The age of foolishness descended upon Singapore the Lion City. It was the epoch for belief and incredulity. We were in a season of Darkness, holding out desperately for the coming season of Light. Trapped in a never-ending Summer of despair, awaiting signs of the hopeful Spring.  A very wet and warm Winter of gloom followed instead. We only had our everything behind us, and nothing before us; some thought we were all going direct to our Heavens, but we were all going directly every each way but upwards.

The Proposed Singapore-Malaya Marriage through Merger was doomed from the get-go. One party was eager, enthusiastic, and the other lukewarm and hesitant. One demanded dominance and total subservience, the other hoping for equality and justice. One racist and the other ethnocentric.  One for a “Malay Malaysia”, the other for a “Malaysian Malaysia”. Never in the History of Civilisation has a Political Marriage so destined for failure from the Courting stage as our victorious Battle for Merger.  What hastened the eventual Union was a Third Party so feared by both Malaya and Singapore.  Communism....     
  
“The idea of Merger for a new Homeland, however, was never far from the minds of Singapore’s Chinese. Malaya and Singapore were always seen as “complete and indivisible as a family”.  A major stumbling block to Merger is Chinese fears about the dilution and destruction of their heritage.”

“By 1955, all major political parties in Singapore were committed to the reunification of Singapore and the Federation. Among Chinese Singaporeans, support for Merger was virtually unanimous.

Inside Malaya however, “the Tunku and the UMNO leadership were opposed to Merger. The single most important reason was “the fear that the incorporation of a million Chinese would immediately threaten and ultimately abolish Malay political dominance and power” in the Federation. UMNO instead equated Malayan culture and identity with the Malay one, and demanded that the minority races should assimilate to the Malay culture and accept the privileged position of Malays in the Federation. They brought this same argument to the debate on merger.

For the Tunku and his Malay Power Elites, the integration of Singapore’s Chinese would threaten the special position of Malays in the Federation. They knew that the Chinese would never assimilate and so never accept Malay predominance.  

It is NOT and has NEVER been in the Chinese psychic to assimilate other ethnic groups to Chinese Culture, and they therefore did not expect to be assimilated to Malay society and culture. The Chinese had regarded themselves as equal to the other races. They did not think it necessary or relevant to accept the special status of Malays and their dominance in the New Malaysia. Chinese Singaporeans envisioned the growth of a new, distinctive Malayan or Malaysian culture that merged the best aspects of Chinese, Malay and other cultures, and with equality for all.

“The Singapore Chinese had looked to Merger as confident, equal partners, not for economic salvation. They saw themselves as the most significant contributors to the Malayan economy and Malayan multiculturalism, and were full of conviction that they had a rightful place on Malayan soil.

They had fought the British and Japanese for Malaya as their own country. By 1960, nearly 80% Singapore Chinese were born in Singapore. They possessed patriotism, cultural pride and a deep conviction that their contribution to Malayan cultural, economic and political life entitled them to an equal place in Malaya. Citizenship and Nationality were important and crucial issues in any Merger agreement.”

Tunku and his Malayan power elites feared the possible ascendency of mostly Chinese-speaking Opposition leaders who may not be able to resist the increasing Communist influence before the latter eventually won real political power through the ballot box.  At this time, the PAP was already decimated by the expulsion of 13 PAP Assemblymen, with their supporters of nearly two-third of the PAP membership, including 19 of its key 23 Organising Secretaries.

“The basic Merger agreement was quickly negotiated by 24 August 1963 meeting all the conditions by giving Singapore autonomy on the critical areas of commerce, labour, and education. Both territories would retain their separate citizenships while enjoying equal rights as Federation Nationals bearing the same passports. However, Singapore citizens could only vote in Singapore, and Federation citizens could only vote in the Federation.  Basically, a “One Country, Two Systems” type of arrangement.

The Marriage with Malaysia was never consummated. The constant acrimonious foreplay over the conflicting visions of meritocratic, multicultural “Malaysian Malaysia” vs a Malay-dominant, racist, ethnic supremacist “Malay Malaysia” marred 2-years of love-hate, bittersweet honeymoon. With no ethnic group then exceeding 50% in the population, a Malaysian Malaysia would have made the most sensible choice, but not to the powerful Malay political elites and their interest groups..... 

Kopi Level - Green
 
Read Full Article:

1962 – When the people were not daft


‘I have recounted these events so that you can see and decide for yourself what is in your best interest’. I heard this statement by LKY over the TV promoting the Battle for Merger book/film.
 

In 1962, LKY had full confidence in the people to think and to decide for themselves what was best for them. In 1962, the bulk of the people were illiterates. In 1962, the highest educational level attained by the population was primary with some at secondary school level. In 1962, the people were still British subjects, but were allowed to make the most important decision in their lives, to decide in a referendum, whether to be a part of Malaysia or otherwise.
 

The best part, and I repeat, the LKY govt did not treat the people as daft, unthinking and irresponsible. And the govt would not decide what was good or bad for them but for the people to decide for themselves.
 

Today, after achieving 1st World status, high level of university education and sophistication, the people became daft, irresponsible, unable to think and decide what is good or bad for them. They could not even be trusted with their money in the CPF. They could not be trusted to view a movie to decide what is truth or untruth, and the govt has to ban the film to protect them from being misguided or conned.
 

In a way the govt’s position is understandable. Just look at the numbers of unthinking IBs in the internet. They simply parrot whatever the official view is and went around attacking netizens that have a different view from them. If this is the level of thinking of the majority of the population, then I can support the govt’s decision to ban the film as we are becoming a nation of irresponsible and unthinking daft. Totally blank in the head.
 

No wonder they did not know that their country is being overwhelmed by foreigners to the point of them becoming a minority, a stranger in their own country. They could not see the risk of losing their country and are laughing away happily and unthinkingly, like what daft usually do.
 

How could the people of 1962 be smarter and better thinking people than the daft of today? Unbelieveable, but it is true. The govt in 1962 trusted and believed in the people to decide what was best for themselves. The govt of today does not trust the people and think they are daft, which is, in a way, quite true also.

Have we progressed as a people?


Kopi Level - Green

10/16/2014

Law Society – Alvin Yeo did not overcharged

‘In Singapore, the general rule is that the losing party has to pay costs to the winning party. Parties can agree on the quantum to be paid, or if they disagree, the court will decide the amount payable after hearing arguments from both sets of lawyers. This is known as taxation.
 

The winning party’s lawyers submit an itemised bill of costs for taxation, which sets out the work done, time spent, lawyers involved and quantum claimed. This bill of costs is subject to the court’s detailed scrutiny, and the losing party is entitled to challenge both the overall quantum claimed as well as specific items.
 

The winning party is entitled to a reasonable amount of all costs reasonably incurred. Any doubts about reasonableness are resolved in favour of the losing party. The quantum determined by the court is an amount that the losing party ought reasonably to pay, and not what a lawyer may reasonably charge the client….
 

The Law Society does not condone overcharging by lawyers, and complaints about overcharging are subject to a statutory regime. Complaints made to the Law Society are referred to independent committees for investigation. These committees are not appointed by the Law Society, and it has no control over them.
The public can have every confidence that there are long-established safeguards in place to address overcharging, whether by one’s own lawyer or by an opposing lawyer.’
 

Shawn Toh
Director, Communications
The Law Society of Singapore

Below are some of the comments posted in TRE in response to the above letter (not in full) from the Law Society. I leave it to the readers to enjoy the read.
 

• downfall of singapore:
October 16, 2014 at 11:52 am (Quote)
these people know now that singapore is in a state of disarray with regards to moral and ethical behaviour so fleece as much a possible before it tanks
Rating: +8 (from 8 votes)
 

• Crooked ppl, crooked logic:
October 16, 2014 at 11:54 am (Quote)
Why no such logic in the medical field? Dr Susan Lim wouldn’t have been found guilty if she can also defended herself by saying, “Medical fees being judged to be lesser than charged doesn’t mean overcharging.”  

Rating: +9 (from 9 votes)
 

• Define "over-charging"...:
October 16, 2014 at 11:58 am (Quote)
If the Law Society claims that Alvin Yeo did not overcharged Susan Lim then can it kindly elaborate on the following:
(1) what did Alvin do if it was not overcharging?
(2) define overcharging (in legal and in layman’s terms)?
(3) isn’t a lawyer ultimately responsible for the bill on his services?
(4) what is different in Alvin’s Yeo case from those cases previously judged by the Law Society as overcharging?  

Rating: +8 (from 8 votes)
 

• Confirmed & double confirmed !:
October 16, 2014 at 11:59 am (Quote)
The law is a joke, is a rich man game. Now, it confirmed that it is also manipulated protection of the PAPees Rating: +7 (from 7 votes)
 

• Party Against People:
October 16, 2014 at 12:02 pm (Quote)
The blatant increase in Alvin legal fees is not overcharging makes the rapist claim that he did not rape the victim but had sex. Come off Lembus, speak in clear
English as majority of your clients do not have your legal skills. LS statement is joke of the decade and SDP Chee should highlight in his speech in IBA. Hahaha


Kopi Level - Yellow

Tony Abbott – Is Australia having a mad man as PM?


Tony Abbott first came on to the international limelight when he jumped the gun by telling Najib that he knew where MH370 had crashed. Today he is still telling the interested parties that the knew where the aircraft had sunk, into the Antarctic Ocean. Today he is still leading the search. Of course nothing was found and it may take another decade for him to tell the Chinese and Malaysians where the aircraft is.
 

In the Today paper yesterday, 14 Oct, Abbott is warning Putin that he would pull him by his shirt to give him a good shake up. This was what was reported, ‘Look, I’m goint to shirtfront Mr Putin, you bet I am….I’m going to be saying to Mr Putin, Australians were murdered and they were murdered by Russian backed rebels using Russian supplied equipment….we now demand that you fully cooperate with the criminal investigation.’
 

Anyone thinking that George Bush Jr was mad, think Abbott. He even threatened to ban Putin from entering Australia to attend the G20 summit. Is this a statesman or a gangster?
 

Wondering what Putin will do if Abbott really did what he said? Would Putin pull his ears and ask him to kneel? Or would Putin carry a cane and give him a couple of whacks?
 

Australians, what is happening to Tony Abbott? Sure he is alright?

Kopi Level - Yellow

Singapore a New Concept City State and a New Consumerism

I am not sure if this is the concept plan for the future of Singapore as a rich, prosperous and vibrant city state. But if anyone is to look at the policies being implemented, it is like clockwork precision in its execution. The concept is to buy anything and everything that the city state needs.

It goes like this, the state needs sportsmen and sportswomen, just buy. If the state needs professors, just buy, engineers, doctors, scientists etc, just buy. If there is a need for bankers, just buy, IT specialists, just buy. Needs billionaires, this one no need to buy, just seduce them to be here for free.

On a bigger scale, if there is a need for any specialty engineering equipment or processes, or companies, just buy. Needing tunnelling expertise, just buy, building of marina barrage and undersea tunnel expertise, new stadium, just buy the companies lock, stock and barrel. No need to grow indigenous companies too. SMEs just remain as SMEs, low tech, low skill to service the high tech, high skill big companies brought in to do the major works.

If this is the concept plan, there is really no need for universities, no need for polytechnics. There is really no need for schools too. Why bother to have schools and tertiary institutions to teach and educate students when there is no guarantee of the products, and it takes a long 15 to 20 years? Just buy. Close down all the schools and tertiary institutions.

Actually there is no need for babies, no need for citizens. Just buy the best from the rest of the world. What about the bought expertists and citizens growing old, can sell them and get rid of them? Or how best to get rid of them when they are no longer useful?

Tell them that they can only get their CPF if they give up their citizenships. If they don’t, selling their properties may not help much either as a huge sum of money will be retained as minimum sum in the CPF. Want your money, please quit and go live somewhere. All residents having out lived their usefulness shall vacate this city, take their CPF and go.

In this way, Singapore can become a New Concept City State where all its manpower needs and technology or engineering and professional needs can be bought. It can save on not having any need for schools and education institutions. It may not even have needs for maternity hospitals as no children need to be born here.

Oh, uniformed police and soldiers can also be bought. No need SAFTI and training grounds too.

And the population will be kept at a young and commercially productive age range. No children and no oldies. It will be a truly vibrant city state of vibrant and economically active and productive people. What citizenship, obsolete idea.


Kopi Level - Yellow