4/7/2015 The history of Singapore 101: part 1 http://limpehft.blogspot.sg/2013/02/the-history-of-singapore-101-part-1.html 1/15 24th February 2013 I have been totally appalled by the number of people in Singapore who actually believed that Singapore was a fishing village in 1965 when the country became an independent nation. My reader Cheerio Gobbler left a comment which read, " He (LKY) still quite single-handedly shaped Singapore and transformed it from fishing village to sprawling metropolis." Cue palm to forehead. Groan. We're talking about the very basics of the history of Singapore which would have been covered as part of the social studies curriculum in primary school and certainly in secondary one history lessons in Singapore. Was Cheerio Gobbler not educated in Singapore perhaps? When I went on to explain where he was so wrong, that Singapore was certainly not a fishing village in the 1960s, he went on to explain, " My history is bad, so you have me on that one. Poor history notwithstanding, I do think he still played a big part in steering the ship." [http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-kZEMdGliez8/USn95EZh- 1I/AAAAAAAAJIw/MiefVqKM0yU/s1600/singapore-+1965.jpg] The history of Singapore 101: part 1
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
A lot of Singaporeans do not seem to actually know that fact that the PAP inheriteda rather good place or infrastructure to begin with, huh? Hahaha....I actually knowway too many people back in Singapore who singlehandedly hand all that credit toLee Kuan Yew on a plate by claiming that once he dies, Singapore will collapselol.....That seriously cracked me up. Now, we know why people are constantlyvoting for the PAP. I have one theory called the 'pumping on steroids' theory:basically, the votes that go to the PAP are like steroids to encourage the former PMand now-retired Minister Mentor to continue living. Hwaiting! lol.....ya.....
Reply
Limpeh Foreign Talent 24 February 2013 at 16:35
That is so Korean ... Hwaiting :)
Remember, Singapore fought hard to gain her independence from Britainin that period! In 1956, David Marshall (then Chief minister of colonialSingapore) led a mission to London to negotiate independence fromBritain and failed - he resigned in despair having failed in his mission.Allow me to cut & paste from wikipedia:
During the Merdeka Talks of 1956, the year before Malaya'sindependence, the British agreed to grant Singapore self-government overdomestic issues, while the British retained control of finance and themilitary. This seemed to satisfy Marshall initially, but the negotiationlater broke down when the British refused to turn over internal security tothe local government. The British felt that Marshall was not doing enoughto counter the threats of the communist insurgency and the MalayanCommunist Party (MCP) which had sparked the Malayan Emergency.The march towards independence was stalled and Marshall resigned in1956 making good on his earlier pledge that he would step down in thecase of failure.Another Labour Front leader Lim Yew Hock took over as Singapore'sChief Minister and continued the effort to push for independence. Limthen undertook harsh measures against the communists demonstratingthat his administration was willing to take a tough stance to safeguardinternal security. In the Chinese middle schools riots of 1956, some ninehundred people were arrested. Leading a negotiation delegation
consisting of several Singapore political leaders from various parties, Lim
managed to convince the British to grant Singapore Merdeka byamending and revamping its Constitution in 1958 to allow for a fullyelected legislature which would form an internal government withcomplete autonomy over domestic affairs. This government was formedfollowing the Singapore general election of 1959, but ironically the LabourFront lost as Lim Yew Hock's harsh techniques had alienated largeportions of the electorate.
So when full independence was finally won in 1965 - Singapore wasready to look ahead to the future rather than thank the British for theinfrastructure they had inherited. The Brits didn't let Singapore have theirindependence without a fight - okay, sure it wasn't as bloody as the warfor independence fought in Vietnam against the French and in Indonesiaagainst the Dutch, but the tide was turning in Asia at that time towardsthe European imperial power and these Asian states were desperate forindependence. When they did get it, there was no mood or appetite to'thank' the British for the infrastructure they built.
This is why so few Singaporeans today even bother to want to considerthis aspect of the equation (ie. what we have to thank the British for)because our forefathers were not interested to even talk about it uponindependence in 1965 because of the prevailing anti-colonial sentiment inSE Asia at that time. But just because you don't wanna talk aboutsomething doesn't mean it isn't true.
gringo777 25 February 2013 at 01:18
I must add.. the Brits were in this not for just benevolent reasons.. surethey deserve recognition for what they built Singapore up to (setting asolid base for infrastructure, legal systems, education systems navalbase etc etc) but they were in it primarily for their own PROFIT in thespirit of that time and age (European colonialism). I would like to think ofit as a mutually profiting relationship that thankfully ended well and un-traumatically enough (Bearing in mind the terrible literally bloody messleft behind in French IndoChina). The moment they lost to the Japanesethe social contract of Colonial Master-Subjugated was torn up and 'sides,I just think it was never that pleasant being the lesser partner of that
Of course it wasn't benevolent - the same way the PAP are not entirelybenevolent either! Such is the nature of government - you do it becauseyou can get something out of it, being benevolent = charity, that's notgovernment, the two are very different indeed.
There were wars of independence fought in former colonies like Vietnam,Indonesia, Algeria etc which led to thousands dying for independence -so at least we had an amicable divorce from the Brits, like you said.
gringo777 27 February 2013 at 01:40
Yes, glad we all agree here. The issue I was meaning to put across wasthe express "thanking" towards the British - They came, they saw, theyconquered and they profited, and so did we from their presence here.Kinda view more as a business relationship than anything else, and theyadmittedly did a much better job than their fellow European colonialistswhich should be remembered and factored in when evaluating thedevelopment of modern Singapore.
I think the part of history most sorely lacking exposure in our education(deliberately?) were the crucial formative post-independence years - 1965onwards and the politics, economics and social structures of that time. Itis hardly ever taught in history lessons and remains a very hazy, grayperiod in the minds of many a young Singaporean.
Fox 24 February 2013 at 20:02
Actually, even LKY's memoirs don't claim that Singapore was a fishing village.
By 1959, when the PAP took over, Singapore had the third highest GDP per capitain Asia. It would be a serious mistake to think that Singapore was a shithole in1959. If Singapore were a fishing village in 1959, why would our forefathers have left
their homeland (where there are fishing villages abound) to come to Singapore? It
does not compute...
Reply
Limpeh Foreign Talent 24 February 2013 at 20:07
This "fishing village" thing is a phrase that netizens have coined, ratherthan something anyone from the PAP actually claimed. But it beggarsbelief that some people actually do believe it is true - even though it wassomething that was covered in both social studies in primary school andin history in sec 1 and 2.
Fox 24 February 2013 at 22:03
True. I suspect that it's hyperbole that somehow turned into commonwisdom.
Kevin Jang 25 February 2013 at 02:18
Well, fox, if you look at the host of songs that primary school andsecondary school students in Singapore have been forced down theirthroats around the so-called National Day season, then you will realizethat some of these songs even reiterate that myth subconsciously ordirectly. "There was a time when people said Singapore won't make it,but we did." I mean, all that whiney nation-building false rhetoric aside,the truth is, it is largely a myth people have chosen to reinforce over andover again even after being educated about it. There is that idea thatSingapore was 'in the slums' and so on prior to the PAP's takeover as aformer opposition party after the Barisan Socialis withdrew in presencefrom Singapore (at least as far as I know). Many people I know--of mygeneration in the 30's--actually believe in this whether they are anti- orpro-PAP, and it does not seem that much more logical. I just guess thatwhen you are used to one version of the story, even if it is not true, it willbecome your 'truth'.
Yes - slums ... I've heard people use that word. The fact is, there wererich people and there were poorer people and there was everything inbetween lah. Given that Singapore was then recovering after WW2, theaverage person was poorer - but it was not as if it was doomed to failure
without the PAP. Even most European countries struggled in the postwar years with rebuilding their economies after WW2 and Singaporestruggled just like all the other countries affected by WW2.
I think you will like part 2 of this series :) Akan datang :)
muchopunk 25 February 2013 at 01:05
For god's sake, even before 1965, Singapore had a very vibrant AGRICULTURE andFISH, PIG rearing business that rivaled that of Indonesia and Malaysia, in fact, wehad enough of this stuff to feed most of Singapore at that time and then export someif the farmers were business savvy enough. Anybody who took History in year 1 ofJC/CI before the the H1/H2 system came along can tell you that shit in a minute ifthey paid attention in class. I don't know what planet all these people come from,but 1 they don't read very much. Number 2, the world seems like a static placewhere there can only be one perspective of history. I would really like to see themlive/work/exist in the Korean peninsular where you have different versions ofJapanese/North/South Korean/Mainland Chinese and Taiwanese versions of whathappened prior to and during the war. It will blow their mind. I think they neverunderstood that winners will write history but it's not the only history.
Okay. Now I can go back and read the post in full beyond the opening line.
Reply
akikonomu 25 February 2013 at 05:19
Factories. FORD was in Singapore decades before independence.
It is precisely for this reason that I started a blog on old Singapore (mostly 19thcentury). Singapore was among the world's top 10 cities even in the 1890s. I don'tknow how this "fishing village" nonsense got started. Singaporeans should realizethat this city has a glorious and colorful heritage about 200 years old and feel proudof it.
Reply
Limpeh Foreign Talent 25 February 2013 at 12:30
Yes, I have seen your blog and I do enjoy it - it is brilliant work you aredoing, keep it up! Thanks for producing such a great blog.
I am totally appalled at this whole "fishing village" idiocy - but it is amisguided notion that does have political implications. I am glad that asbloggers we can use our influence to redress that balance.
XxtoweringxX 25 February 2013 at 14:05
By the way, this youtube video below show what Singapore looked like in1957. It sure doesn't look like a fishing village to me. The PAP gavethemselves too much credit.
To be fair, it is not entirely the PAP giving themselves credit - it's salahSingaporeans giving the PAP this credit based on a very misguided viewof Singapore's history! Fishing village, aiyoh.
Pauline Lee 25 March 2015 at 00:08
Relatively, in 1965, Singapore had all the basic infrastructure but civil issues weremassive. I'm sure everyone knows that.
Reply
Daniel Kevlar 1 April 2015 at 12:45
You'd be surprised. After the passing of the Dictator, the propagandamachine has been preaching the notion that the PAP raised Singaporefrom a 'sleepy fishing village' in 1965 to a metropolis.