• IP addresses are NOT logged in this forum so there's no point asking. Please note that this forum is full of homophobes, racists, lunatics, schizophrenics & absolute nut jobs with a smattering of geniuses, Chinese chauvinists, Moderate Muslims and last but not least a couple of "know-it-alls" constantly sprouting their dubious wisdom. If you believe that content generated by unsavory characters might cause you offense PLEASE LEAVE NOW! Sammyboy Admin and Staff are not responsible for your hurt feelings should you choose to read any of the content here.

    The OTHER forum is HERE so please stop asking.

Why Celebrate Independence when its been exchanged for 50 years of PAP enslavement?

Papsmearer

Alfrescian (InfP) - Comp
Generous Asset
Why Celebrate 52 years of Independence from the British, in exchange for 52 years of PAP enslavement?

I write this article with the notion that Singapore did not attain its independence in 1965, as the PAP would have you believe. Instead, we achieved independence or self rule in 1963 from the British. Lee Kuan Yew for whatever reason (lack of confidence in his abilities being one of them), decided to join Malaya. We have to remember that the merger was not asked for by Malaya, they did not beg us to join them, but instead was initiated by the PAP. Malaysian Prime Minister of the day Tunku Abdul Rahman was against the merger as he felt that mostly Chinese Singapore would be a troublesome and pro-communist member of the Federation. This so called Independence and SG50 that the PAP promoted is nothing but a fraud. If you wanted to and voted to join a country in 1963, and 2 years later ask to leave it in 1965, does not mean you achieved independence. You always had the independence. The Brits gave you the independence in 1959, but you chose to give up your independence by joining Malaya. Later on, when you admitted it was a mistake and peacefully left Malaya, you cannot say that you achieve Independence, what for a second time? That is disingenuous and a lie. Now that the hoopla over Singapore’s 50 year Independence has died down and now that the 2015 Elections is over, I have to ask one simple question. Would we have been better off under a British Colonial govt?

In all phases, I can only conclude that the answer is a resounding YES, we would have been better off with the Brits here. All of the achievements that the PAP claimed they made were actually started by the British and brought to greater heights by the British if they had been allowed to stay. How do we know that the British would have done better then the PAP? We simply look at our closest competitor, fellow Tiger Economy, and former colony, Hong Kong. We have many similarities to Hong Kong including a small land area with no natural resources, and a large population size which is hard working and well educated, and a vast hinderland adjoining the country for the purposes of trade and labour. They have China, and we have Malaysia and Indonesia. I bring up Hong Kong because I have a familiarity with that city, having lived there for some time.

The Hong Kongians had the benefit of an additional 32 years under the British Colonial govt., as the British left in 1997, while they left Singapore in 1965. In this extra 32 years, the British inculcated a sense of how real democracy should work and how real justice and actual freedom felt and tasted like. They left these values with the Hong Kongians and not much more. Let’s face it, the British knew that they had to give Hong Kong back to the PRC and were not interested in spending on red penny more on the colony then they had too. Given their budget constraints, more likely, the British would have milked everything they could out of Hong Kong.

What did the Hong Kong do under the British Colonial govt.? Well, they started construction of the new international airport in 1991, and it opened one year after the British left in 1998. The British started the Hong Kong Housing Authority and the Hong Kong Housing Society which opened its estate in 1953. The British also started the Singapore Improvement Trust, forerunner to today’s HDB. Queenstown estate was originally a SIT project. There were already several hundred thousand flats build by the HKHA while under British rule, and since 1997, the current number stands at over 1,300,000 units. HKHA were able to build these flats despite not owning 90% of the land of Hong Kong, unlike the Singapore Govt/HDB. So, the question to be asked is if the British were still running Singapore, would we have as successful a public housing program as Hong Kong. I don’t doubt this would have happened. In fact, the British gave free land and subsidized loan to HKHA to build the flats. Imagine that. No land confiscation in Hong Kong to build public housing.

Corruption Free?

One could say the ICAC (Hong Kong’s anti corruption agency set up in 1974 under British Colonial rule) is much more active and prominent then Singapore’s CPIB. ICAC is truly an independent organization and not part of the PMO like CPIB is. CPIB’s budgets and salaries is wholely dependent on and funded by the Prime Minister’s Office. In Hong Kong, the ICAC would have investigated the many conflicts of interests an d corruption that CPIB failed to do. Such cases included the giving of discounts for luxury flats in Nassim Jade to Lee Kuan Yew and his family. As well, the default use of the Prime Minister’s law firm Lee and Lee for the hundreds of thousands of HDB flat conveyancing carried out. In Singapore, corruption is not on a low level but at the highest. Such a system would never have been allowed under a British colonial system. Such arrangements would have been investigated at the highest level in not only Singapore but also the UK. UK newspapers would readily report such crimes even if local newspapers do not, for the simple reason that such going-ons happened in a prominent British colony.

Myth of the Great Leadership


I ask this simple question. Who is the great leader of Hong Kong? Can anyone name one British governor that ruled for 50 years or one President of the LEGCO that ruled for such a long time? The answer is no. A series of LEGCOs ran Hong Kong. They had no larger then life entity like Lee Kuan Yew, who claimed all the success as his own. And for that matter neither did other economic powers such as Japan and South Korea. Who is the Lee Kuan Yew of Hong Kong? Which party is the PAP of Hong Kong? No one knows. They never needed one, they never had one. Ditto for South Korea and Japan. Obviously a so called stable one party govt is not needed in these countries. Hong Kong is a prime example that a Chinese dominated society under a nominal foreign rule and using a foreign country’s laws and public systems could be very successful over the cult of a one man personality. Could we expect the same sort of result for Singapore if we were still under Britain? I don’t see why not.

National Defence

How about the defence of Singapore? Currently, we are spending over $13 billion per annum to buy the most sophisticated stealth vessels for the Navy, F-15 for the Air Force, Leopard tanks for the army, etc. This is money that could have been spend elsewhere, and in fact would have paid for free medical care for every Singapore citizen for the whole year. Would the British have been capable of providing a valid defence from foreign invasion for Singapore if they were still colonial masters? The answer is again YES, and they would have been able to do it without national service conscription and without taxing the country to the tune of $13 billion a year as they do now. How will they do this? The threat is simply changed. After WW2, a large and ambitious military power such as Japan does not exist in the South East Asia region anymore. There was some element of a Communist threat but this was actively being fought by the British while they were still here and in most cases, the communist were insurgents more then they were an organized army. Hence their ability to attack and take over a country like Singapore was highly unlikely. Threats from Indonesia were unfounded as was proven by the weak military action during the Konfrontasi (parachutists dropped into Singapore resulting in 100% casualties for the assaulting force). Malaysia remains a close neighbor to us despite all the differences over the years. The threat is not from there either. Would the British have been able to maintain a viable military force given all their troop withdrawals and budget cuts. Yes, they can. This is achieved through a combination of military treaties such as the 5 Power Defence Arrangement involving the UK, Australia, New Zealand Malaysia and Singapore. It was also achieved through a large Gurkha presence in Singapore. If you believe that one Gurkha is worth 5 of any other soldier, then a force of 30,000 Gurkhas is very formidable. As well, since the British are so close to the US, the allowing of the US Navy to base part of their fleet here would add to the defence of Singapore too. At the end of the day, a modest tax can be levied to fund these defence arrangements with the British, but no where near the $13 billion needed today. The main thing that a defence provided by the British would have eliminated the paranoia and sabre rattling that the Lees consistently showed and more importantly, any defence by the British would have been conducted by professional soldiers and officers, trained in Sandhurst and battle proven. As opposed to the amateur scholar generals you have today.

Economy

What would the Singapore economy look like under the British? Would we be economically successful, we would have high employment, etc.? I don’t see why not. Again, I point to the example of Hong Kong. They have been very successful under the British and up to 1997. After that, the success has continued based on the system left by the Brits and mostly untouched by the Chinese govt. If the Hong Kongians under British rule can do this, why can’t Singapore under British rule? Singapore’s initial economic policies were British, to be supplanted and enlarged under Dutch Economist Albert Winsemius. Let’s face it, you did not think a bunch of new politicians (most of them lawyers) would suddenly stumble upon an economic plan that achieved so much. To the PAP’s credit, they implemented most of Winsemius’ plan and stole as little as possible. That was the economic success of Singapore. Hong Kongians had a more democratic way to do things. They had a professional civil service, not answerable to any political party, and they had real democratically elected members of Legislative Council (LEGCO) with an elected President. The British Governor of Hong Kong acted very much like the President of Singapore, approving bills acting as the Queen’s representative in Hong Kong. Since 1976, there have been 15 elections of LEGCO. Yet throughout the years, members elected have voted on and guided the economic policies of Hong Kong. Were they any more intelligent then our MPs? Did they have some incredible foresight that turned Hong Kong into an economic powerhouse. No, they did not. They just employed prudent economic policies.

Freedoms


This is the biggest winner that being under British colonial rule would have been over the so called independence from them. The British have a highly developed sense of fairness, developed through hundreds of years of a Parliamentary system. Their system of law is universally recognized as the standard and adopted by many countries in some form or other. If we were under British rule, the following would not have happened:

1) Land Acquisition Act – The notion of taking someone’s land and paying them peanuts for it would not have been tolerated by the British. Any land taken over by an elected local govt. legislative council to build HDB flats for example would have to be purchased at the fair market price.

2) Gerrymandering the elections boundary every elections would also not have been signed into law by any British Governor of Singapore. The only time the British would consider redrawing election boundaries in their own country would be if the population of one ward exceeded or was less then a set standard. Usually a population figure of say 80,000. This is unlike Singapore where the PAP apparently re-draws election boundaries at their wimp.

3) Govt salaries will never be allowed to go as high as they are. Imagine which British Governor of Singapore would sign a law that allows Singapore MPs to be paid $17,000 a month, much more then any British MP earns. Any such greedy laws would not be signed into existence.

4) The Privy Council appeals system would still be in place. In the past, the Privy Council in London was the last word on Singapore Law. Many rulings were overturn by the Privy Council including Jeyaratnam’s libel conviction, the Land Acquisition Act, etc. So much so, that the PAP abolished appeals to the Privy Council except in the cases of the Death Penalty. Under a British govt, the Privy Council would still be in use and hence any kangaroo court judgements levied by a PAP controlled judiciary could be overturned. This alone would check PAP power and would be an important safeguard.

5) We would have real freedom of the press and media I funder the British Colonial govt. The British have a tradition of media freedom and power of the press. In Hong Kong, many magazines, newspapers, and tabloids existed under the British as well as TV and radio stations. In 2002, 5 years after the British left Hong Kong, there were still 54 daily newspapers (almost all set up during the British Colonial time). Of the three radio stations in 2002, one was govt owned. The 2 major TV stations, ATV and TVB are privately. The Freedom of the Press is guaranteed in Article 37 of the Hong Kong Basic Law. In Singapore, no such freedoms are possible. The PAP will not issue licenses to any whole private or independent radio or TV stations. In fact, the PAP goes out of its way to suppress any form of media not supportive of it, as evidence by lawsuits against bloggers and online websites.

Conclusion


I ask what is this so called independence that the PAP claims we have achieved? Were the British or Malaya suppressing us, killing us, pillaging our homes, raping our women, stilling all our money? What was it that we so proudly achieved by gaining independence, whether it is from the British or Malaya? I can’t think of anything. A serious case can be made for just the opposite. We have exchanged our independence from Britain for tyranny and oppression under Lee Kuan Yew and the PAP. There is guaranteed chance that we would have had more freedom to express ourselves and to be truly democratic under the British. More importantly, the extra 32 years the Hong Kongians had under the British benefitted them in many ways. They took the best of British law and systems and ably adapted it to themselves.

And they learned not to be bullied, whether it’s by China or by mainlanders moving to Hong Kong. The British have been out of Hong Kong now for 28 years. In that time, with China allowing them 50 years of freedom from direct interference, Hong Kong has grown and matched or surpass Singapore in many aspects and in economic performance. All done with largely the British system left in place and amended by the locally elected LEGCO. These were largely no name politicians, other then Martin See, I don’t know many of any others off hand.

I feel sadden when I see Hong Kong, and the freedom they enjoy, and the economic success they have, even while owned by a communist govt. I am envious that we could have had their fate if our forefathers were not so quick to turn out the British. I like that they can simply organize a large scale demonstration to show their disapproval of a govt policy, instead of the hoops that you have to jump through here. I like that there is little red tape when starting a business. I like that the education system there is easy to understand, MPF (called MPF in Hong Kong, equivalent to our CPF) policies are plain and simple and you can take all your money out at 55 with no minimum sum. There are so many other advantages that I cannot count.

So what is so great about this independence that we have achieved when we are under the dictation and tyranny of the PAP?

Copyright 2015. PAPsmearer……a loyal Son of Singapore
 
Last edited:

jw5

Moderator
Moderator
Loyal
Re: Why Celebrate Independence when its been exchanged for 50 years of PAP enslavemen

You would have to admit though, that the indoctrination of sinkies has been very successful.
 

Papsmearer

Alfrescian (InfP) - Comp
Generous Asset
Re: Why Celebrate Independence when its been exchanged for 50 years of PAP enslavemen

You would have to admit though, that the indoctrination of sinkies has been very successful.

When press and media control and education control is absolute as in the case of singapore, its easier to be more successful then in HKG.
 

Papsmearer

Alfrescian (InfP) - Comp
Generous Asset
Re: Why Celebrate Independence when its been exchanged for 50 years of PAP enslavemen

5 more years of PAP dictatorship. I rather be in a British Colony.
 

freedalas

Alfrescian
Loyal
Re: Why Celebrate Independence when its been exchanged for 50 years of PAP enslavemen

When press and media control and education control is absolute as in the case of singapore, its easier to be more successful then in HKG.

That's true. But nowadays with social media where "the other side of the story" is presented, Singaporeans still seem to believe the PAP! It looks more like Singaporeans are really daft.
 

Patriot

Alfrescian
Loyal
Re: Why Celebrate Independence when its been exchanged for 50 years of PAP enslavemen

ap79DZJ.jpg
 

mojito

Alfrescian
Loyal
Re: Why Celebrate Independence when its been exchanged for 50 years of PAP enslavemen

But will you have a HDB flat that is worth half a million today paid at a fraction of its original price?
 

Papsmearer

Alfrescian (InfP) - Comp
Generous Asset
Re: Why Celebrate Independence when its been exchanged for 50 years of PAP enslavemen

But will you have a HDB flat that is worth half a million today paid at a fraction of its original price?

Stop spreading PAP lies. You don't have a HDB flat worth half a million $. You have only half a flat as one of the HDB condition says you must be married to apply for one. In any case, it says clearly in the HDB contract that you are a tenant, not an owner. After you pay interest on the loan, mandatory upgrades, you have less then that.
 

mojito

Alfrescian
Loyal
Re: Why Celebrate Independence when its been exchanged for 50 years of PAP enslavemen

Stop spreading PAP lies. You don't have a HDB flat worth half a million $. You have only half a flat as one of the HDB condition says you must be married to apply for one. In any case, it says clearly in the HDB contract that you are a tenant, not an owner. After you pay interest on the loan, mandatory upgrades, you have less then that.

Tenancy contract can be transferred or sold. Legally it may not be ownership, but substantial benefits of ownership are realized once it is sold. Sure it goes into cpf, but u can withdraw if u give up citizenship. Just retire or live elsewhere after that, and make sure to keep voting the PAP so the music never stops before you do. :smile:
 

yahoo55

Alfrescian
Loyal
Re: Why Celebrate Independence when its been exchanged for 50 years of PAP enslavemen

You would have to admit though, that the indoctrination of sinkies has been very successful.

The indoctrination and brainwashing starts from very young, from PAP kindergarten onwards, to primary school social studies etc... I think the public education system has it's designs from LKY.

lky2.jpg
 

Ambulance

Alfrescian
Loyal
Re: Why Celebrate Independence when its been exchanged for 50 years of PAP enslavemen

halo mai comprain leow lah

 

kopiOuncle

Alfrescian
Loyal
Re: Why Celebrate Independence when its been exchanged for 50 years of PAP enslavemen

utter rubbish

50 years of enslavement

utterly nonsense!!!
 

Selassie

Alfrescian
Loyal
Re: Why Celebrate Independence when its been exchanged for 50 years of PAP enslavemen

50 years of enslavement this is bad.
 
Top