sang nila utama vs sun yat sen

why did gahmen need to spend so much on doing up wan qing yuan the villa where sun yat sen once stayed while in singapore? why was sang nila utama who founded singapura neglected instead?

answer: sun yat sen was an FT who dealed with democracy - the word most feared by our gahmen. sang nila utama on the other was very LOCAL to us. he named this country singapura after his aide told him the animal he saw was a lion or singa in malay.

instead of spending so much for SUN YAT SEN VILLA which contributed nothing to singapore history poor sang nila utama on the other hand was ungraciously neglected.

some historian has gotta to correct what made the blurking sang nila thought that he saw a lion which was could only be found be found in the savannah plains of africa. the beast that his aide saw - i could be sure - was most likely to be a babi or wild pig. male wild pig also got a mane like the lion.

presumably, babi was offensive in the islamic text so his aide shrewdly misled king utama into thinking that it was a lion. that was how Singapura was named after (lion city). if the aide were to tell the truth and reveal that it was a wild pig (babi), his head would be off the neck!

our gahmen should be bold enough to investigate in this dubious history that there wasn't a lion that sang nila utama saw. it should correctly be a wild boar.

if that could be proven, singapura should rightfully be changed to BABIPURA or porky city. LOL!! :p

so people, it's confirmed that our pap gov pride FT over local talent. sun yat sen did nothing for singapore. he was for china. yet singapore gov is so carried away to highlight wan qing yuan.

now they wanna destroy BUKIT BROWN cementery where many of the forefathers who had strived to make singapore what it is today.

why like that? forefathers were local talents. and they have to go. kek sim!! that's the arrogance and selfish nature of the pap in action again :(

leetahbar said:

now they wanna destroy BUKIT BROWN cementery where many of the forefathers who had strived to make singapore what it is today.

Click to expand...

Sure anot? I heard from many Sinkie sheep that it was Harry Lee who built Singapore from a fishing village to a modern metropolis.

Cruxx said:

Sure anot? I heard from many Sinkie sheep that it was Harry Lee who built Singapore from a fishing village to a modern metropolis.

Click to expand...

there were the rich merchants and chinese businessmen who contributed to singapore's progress. now the gahmen is going to wreck their resting places as a gratitude to remember them.

that's rich history which gahmen has grossly neglected and instead overdo on the sun yat sen villa. LT vs FT. FT won again.

http://www.straitstimes.com/BreakingNews/Singapore/Story/STIStory_726727.html

Boon Lay, Boon Tat, Koon Seng, Hong Lim, Joo Chiat and Chong Pang vs sun yat sen

A young nation needs its historical sites

Published on Oct 24, 2011

I APPLAUD Ms Chew I-Jin and her fellow signatories for appealing to the authorities to preserve the graves at Bukit Brown ('Keep Bukit Brown graves: Descendants', Oct 19).


Her appeal merits consideration.


The graves belong to pioneers who are well known to Singaporeans today because streets and places are named after them: Boon Lay, Boon Tat, Koon Seng, Hong Lim, Joo Chiat and Chong Pang. These are not just names. They are pioneer luminaries who are a very integral part of our short history.


As a young nation, we are short of historical sites or stories to form a strong foundation for national reference by future generations.


These graves appear to be those of the who's who of the last century and can really provide us with the teaching materials to enrich our social and moral education.


The aesthetics and architecture of these tombs are too beautiful and precious to be just bulldozed away. They are very precious as we would not find such craftsmanship anywhere else. It would be unthinkable if such structures of historical and heritage significance were to be wiped out just like any other building.


I strongly urge the authorities to heed the compelling appeal by Ms Chew and other signatories.


Albert Tye

Re: Boon Lay, Boon Tat, Koon Seng, Hong Lim, Joo Chiat and Chong Pang vs sun yat sen

Bukit Brown can be Singapore's Arlington

Published on Oct 24, 2011

BALANCING the needs of development against conservation has always been a delicate act in this small island that is our home ('Keep Bukit Brown graves: Descendants'; last Wednesday).


However, our home is also our country and a country needs its memories.


Without Singapore's history and the stories of its leaders and pioneers - what they lived, fought and died for - the country will have no heritage and no soul - no spiritual sustenance. It will be much like the situation of an unfortunate rich man with Alzheimer's disease.


Our survival as a nation depends much on our spirit.


Bukit Brown is the most significant and important cemetery left, filled with memorial gravestones of many of our pioneers and ancestors. The gravestones themselves are sculptural works of art and tablets of rich history.


This estate is adjacent to MacRitchie Reservoir and part of this land can be considered as catchment area.


Can we not keep most of this estate as a memorial and heritage park, much like the Arlington Cemetery in the United States, for citizens who served Singapore with honour?


It can also be used for recreation while the rest can still be used for some development, as roads or homes.


The Conservation Advisory Panel visited this estate in 2009 and was told then that the consideration of the site would be left for the future generation.


Each time I drive under the Fort Canning tunnel, I wonder if the destruction of our old National Library building was worth it.


Once an important heritage site like this is lost, it can never be regained. Can we really afford to lose this priceless part of our history?


Dr James Khoo


FORUM NOTE: The writer was chairman of the Conservation Advisory Panel from 2002 to 2010 and the founding chairman of the Asian Civilisations Museum. He is also a former member of the National Heritage Board.

do you think the gahmen is going to be bothered by all these protesting views? again, pinky lies to us. he said "we should be the voters servants and not masters...." ( or something like that) money first, the rest to the paps is secondary and unimportant.

Sang Nila Utama was never a muslim to begin with with Islam being spread around the region nearly a century after his time.

JayBee said:

Sang Nila Utama was never a muslim to begin with with Islam being spread around the region nearly a century after his time.

Click to expand...

Sang nila utama was a Hindu Prince, Islam was only spread to this part of the world when the Arabs started trading and exploring around this region thus expanding their influence and later on converting the natives to islam..

hello, just look at who is Singapore getting into bed with today?

China ok....

not Sang Nila Utama or Sang Orang Utan

Who is important father to China?

SYS lah....

get the peekture? Moreover, its 100 years of Xinghai revolution mah...

which year . which date did Sang Nila Utama spotted the lion & call it Singapore? In fact, there are doubts that he saw a lion because there was no lions spotted after that. What happened to the lions? Did a Mas Selamat and went to JB? Did any one in JB found any lions?

sun yat sen's cause was for china then. sgp just a vessel to help gather funds to provide for his motive.

now, again sgp lavish and waste much resources just to highlight this historical figure that had in anyway involved didn't benefit in our own nation building. (in fact i feel those fighting funds were wasted for one man's cause. china all along in history is best known for tormenting their own people and killing them without mercy. it was like that and it remains like that.)

if wan qing yuan need to be so enthuiastically preserved, then why the different treatment to the true blue singapore forefathers resting in BUKIT BROWN cementery? remember: once that place is destroyed, part of our priceless history would be lost forever.

IMHO, the gov is using the building of road utilising BT BROWN as an excuse to exploit the land area there for more monetary gains.

for starters, they should curb the car population. instead they are obscenely exploiting the situation by rising COEs and increasing non-stop collection gantries. in the end, traffic jams are just as bad.

Golf courses, not history, should make way
by Liew Kai Khiun 04:46 AM Oct 25, 2011

The Land Transport Authority's plan to open a major road through Bukit Brown Cemetery, which is of eco-heritage value, has raised debates between conservationists and developmentalists.

One sees the more intangible but longer term cultivation of a collective sense of identity and belonging; the other, the short-term but lucrative demands for growth and prosperity, particularly for this land near expensive residences along Bukit Timah Road.

As the population expands, the contestations for land use will become more pressing, and this debate is crucial in determining the liveability of Singapore for future generations.

While I am heartened by the Government's commitment to "a city within a garden", I am unsure how this can be realised in practice. The approach to Bukit Brown Cemetery seems instead to be turning the country into gardens within the city.

Perhaps, we need a radical rethink of land use in light of the current limitations, and I suggest that Singapore does away completely with golf courses.

According to the Urban Redevelopment Authority, 22 golf courses and three temporary golf sites occupied 88 per cent of the 1,600 hectares of land used for sports and recreation in 2000, or 2.2 per cent of total land area.

To underline the exclusive nature of golfing here, the premium Singapore Island Country Club has four 18-hole courses, a nine-hole course and two driving ranges that stretch from Adam Road to the boundaries of Peirce Reservoir.

All these facilities and land, enjoyed by about 18,000 members.

Although golf courses are located in constrained areas near water catchment zones, military training grounds or flight paths, not only do they occupy huge tracts of land, they are economically unproductive, socially exclusive and environmentally damaging.

If Singapore's policies are based on pragmatism and inclusiveness, golfing should not be considered a practical activity here. Golfers should go to neighbouring countries for their sport.

Given the increasing congestion in public parks like MacRitchie Reservoir and East Coast Park, it is unacceptable that a privileged few have exclusive access to large plots of land in a tiny country with a burgeoning population.

In 1991, plans to convert parts of Peirce Reservoir into an 18-hole golf course were shelved after the Nature Society convinced the authorities of the rich wildlife in the vicinity.

This scenic area has remained a public space and diverse natural habitat that all can enjoy. On similar grounds, if there must be redevelopment in the Lornie Road area, one of SICC's golf courses, rather than the cemetery, should make way.

The recent parliamentary debates put greater priority on cultivating Singapore's soul and on developing a more active citizenry interacting with a more open Government in an inclusive society, as the Prime Minister spelt out when he assumed premiership in 2004.

Singaporeans should ask themselves to choose between saving an exclusive golf course or a culturally, ecologically and historically rich site like Bukit Brown Cemetery, if they are keen on nurturing this Singapore Soul. This is not a difficult choice, even for the wealthy, if we are thinking of wealth and happiness for all Singaporeans for generations.



The writer is an assistant professor at a local university.

why isn't golf courses being sacrificed instead if gahmen really means well for the citizens?

leetahbar said:

sun yat sen's cause was for china then. sgp just a vessel to help gather funds to provide for his motive.

now, again sgp lavish and waste much resources just to highlight this historical figure that had in anyway involved didn't benefit in our own nation building. (in fact i feel those fighting funds were wasted for one man's cause. china all along in history is best known for tormenting their own people and killing them without mercy. it was like that and it remains like that.)

if wan qing yuan need to be so enthuiastically preserved, then why the different treatment to the true blue singapore forefathers resting in BUKIT BROWN cementery? remember: once that place is destroyed, part of our priceless history would be lost forever.

IMHO, the gov is using the building of road utilising BT BROWN as an excuse to exploit the land area there for more monetary gains.

for starters, they should curb the car population. instead they are obscenely exploiting the situation by rising COEs and increasing non-stop collection gantries. in the end, traffic jams are just as bad.

Click to expand...

of cse...why no one cried foul when they dig up Biddari cemetery...?

so many historical places are being demolished...at least now they bother to organise closed door mtg ok...last time? the only sound u hear from them are the bulldozers.

red amoeba said:

which year . which date did Sang Nila Utama spotted the lion & call it Singapore? In fact, there are doubts that he saw a lion because there was no lions spotted after that. What happened to the lions? Did a Mas Selamat and went to JB? Did any one in JB found any lions?

Click to expand...

There're no doubts. It's a certainty. There're no lions in Asia, not even in China or India. Lions are natives only in Africa and Europe. Whichever year it was I don't know but Sang Nila Utama didn't discover or found Singapore, he just passed by and moved on. There were already earlier arrivals and natives here.

Forvendet said:

There're no doubts. It's a certainty. There're no lions in Asia, not even in China or India. Lions are natives only in Africa and Europe. Whichever year it was I don't know but Sang Nila Utama didn't discover or found Singapore, he just passed by and moved on. There were already earlier arrivals and natives here.

Click to expand...

this is where historians should research on our origins. why waste effort and resources on some stupid wan qing yuan that didn't contirbute to what and where singapore is today?

at least sang nila utama named this place SINGAPURA for his mistaken perception tht he saw a lion. if he were to correctly called it BABIPURA, the surrounding muslim countries would gang up to destroy us for crying out loud! LOL!!

Yes... There arent any historic facts about Singapore b4 Raffles, Only thing that is pointed out that b4 raffles there were Malay Fishermans on the island. But no artifacts and origins to date back how far there was civilization in Singapore. which part of the world was Singapore attached to b4 it broke off..Was there things like dinosaurs on this island, the animals that used to live here, was there wars fought here, who were the natives and where did they come from? Who was the earliest settlement and where did there settle.. Many many things has to be digged up.

Asian fascination with lion is amazing. Thailand has their national beer Singha named after it. China has the lion dance without knowing what a lion really looks like when designing the lion head, but the mistake has to remain as tradition. Native Asian tigers are the biggest and most powerful cats in the world, not lions.

As for who arrived in Singapore first, they were certainly Malay fishermen. Who laid any semblance of sovereign claim over Singapore first, that's Siam, with claims all through Malaya. Those days, no force were used and the Malay states weren't founded yet and the Malays couldn't be bothered about verbal claims. The Malays still didn't have any concept of statehood and life went on happily. The Burmese invasion of Siam up north forced the Thais to concentrate their power up north as Malaya gradually developed into Malay states without much foreign interference. Siam was too caught up with Burma to be bothered about that too.

Singapore as a city-state even in colonial status, was founded by Sir Stamford Raffles. Discovery, settlement and founding are three different things.

psy83 said:

Yes... There arent any historic facts about Singapore b4 Raffles, Only thing that is pointed out that b4 raffles there were Malay Fishermans on the island. But no artifacts and origins to date back how far there was civilization in Singapore. which part of the world was Singapore attached to b4 it broke off..Was there things like dinosaurs on this island, the animals that used to live here, was there wars fought here, who were the natives and where did they come from? Who was the earliest settlement and where did there settle.. Many many things has to be digged up.

Click to expand...

there was a very historical figure. his name was PARAMESWARA who if i remember well duing my primary school's history classes was a singaporean. he later went or fled to matland and founded MALACCA to be the sultan there. but i think his origin was a singaporean.

Forvendet said:

Asian fascination with lion is amazing. Thailand has their national beer Singha named after it. China has the lion dance without knowing what a lion really looks like when designing the lion head, but the mistake has to remain as tradition. Native Asian tigers are the biggest and most powerful cats in the world, not lions.

As for who arrived in Singapore first, they were certainly Malay fishermen. Who laid any semblance of sovereign claim over Singapore first, that's Siam, with claims all through Malaya. Those days, no force were used and the Malay states weren't founded yet and the Malays couldn't be bothered about verbal claims. The Malays still didn't have any concept of statehood and life went on happily. The Burmese invasion of Siam up north forced the Thais to concentrate their power up north as Malaya gradually developed into Malay states without much foreign interference. Siam was too caught up with Burma to be bothered about that too.

Singapore as a city-state even in colonial status, was founded by Sir Stamford Raffles. Discovery, settlement and founding are three different things.

Click to expand...

how did singapura evolve to become SINGAPORE? if babipura, it would be BABIPORE today and all of us would be called babiporeans? hahahaha.....LD

leetahbar said:

how did singapura evolve to become SINGAPORE? if babipura, it would be BABIPORE today and all of us would be called babiporeans? hahahaha.....LD

Click to expand...

What if the name Temasek remains and we become Temasekians LOL

HedgeTrader said:

What if the name Temasek remains and we become Temasekians LOL

Click to expand...

correction: TAMASICK and the people would be called tamasikiaokiao or in plain engrish: wait-until-die-cock-standinger