Singapore History <--- written by winner!

[greenies]

I just came to reply to a SBF member about WWII history.
Then, flashed in my mind about Singapore history.

Quite obvious that the winners wrote the history how they liked to see and fit into the winner mould.
In Singapore, the history was mainly about PAP glory.

Please share your view on it.
Thank you.

 

[eErotica69]

I just came to reply to a SBF member about WWII history.
Then, flashed in my mind about Singapore history.

Quite obvious that the winners wrote the history how they liked to see and fit into the winner mould.
In Singapore, the history was mainly about PAP glory.

Please share your view on it.
Thank you.

Not just now and Singapore. Every country throughout history is the same.

Would WW2 history be the same of the Japanese won?

 

[laksaboy]

That's why it's important to teach your kids about 'the other less-spoken side of history' instead of letting their impressionable minds imbibe everything they've been exposed to in school. Especially in Singapore, it is a parent's duty to counteract the insidious and blatant propaganda found in National Education materials.

 

[greenies]

That's why it's important to teach your kids about 'the other less-spoken side of history' instead of letting their impressionable minds imbibe everything they've been exposed to in school. Especially in Singapore, it is a parent's duty to counteract the insidious and blatant propaganda found in National Education materials.

Yes, exactly.
Fortunately, we have online media where info can be shared and viewed w/o any censorship and can afford not to read bias MSMs.

 

[greenies]

Not just now and Singapore. Every country throughout history is the same.

Would WW2 history be the same of the Japanese won?

Quite interesting to read and learn other side of the story - WWII, Singapore, China, even slave view on government affairs.

 

[tonychat]

where is the part on LKY being a coward Japanese Translator during the jap occupation.

 

[rodent2005]

Please share your view on it.
Thank you.

I think Singapore's merger with Malaya was a master stroke by the PAP.

 

[cleareyes]

I just came to reply to a SBF member about WWII history.
Then, flashed in my mind about Singapore history.

Quite obvious that the winners wrote the history how they liked to see and fit into the winner mould.
In Singapore, the history was mainly about PAP glory.

Please share your view on it.
Thank you.

All history are written or allowed to be around by winners.

When will ever there be a time where losers can ensure their history remain to be told? Then those aint losers but winners too.

 

[escher]

where is the part on LKY being a coward Japanese Translator during the jap occupation.

Never explained how LKY became a translator when he knew only one language.

WHAT THE FUCK WAS LKY TRANSLATING?
The screams of Lim Bo Seng as he was tortured to death by the Japs?

EXPLAIN EXPLAIN EXPLAIN

 

[Thick Face Black Heart]

I just came to reply to a SBF member about WWII history.
Then, flashed in my mind about Singapore history.

Quite obvious that the winners wrote the history how they liked to see and fit into the winner mould.
In Singapore, the history was mainly about PAP glory.

Please share your view on it.
Thank you.

Obvious indeed. According to the PAP history, we fought the communists who were decimating civilians, torching houses, and causing unrest within the worker ranks. The PAP fought hard against racial politics in Malaysia, but in the end, they had no choice but to leave the Federation. Then the PAP went on to built a first world city with all the glitz and glamour and roof over everyone's heads.

 

[scroobal]

There is history that is researched, validated and published by historians. Then there is "history" found in the press, in school textbooks and government journals. There is enough qualified people all around the world to provide the necessary checks and balances.

The question is which version is being read by an individual. No doubt that there will be gaps.

 

[kingrant]

Of cos. School history text books will never explain why the PM of Singapore found it necessary to announce publicly on state media that it was independent from the British on 31 August 1963 when he knew that the whole world knew that Singapore would be joining Malaysia through merger 16 days later on 16th Sep 1963.

If you are a gullible guy, you would just swallow up what the school texts tell you and discover nothing new.

 

[rodent2005]

Of cos. School history text books will never explain why the PM of Singapore found it necessary to announce publicly on state media that it was independent from the British on 31 August 1963 when he knew that the whole world knew that Singapore would be joining Malaysia through merger 16 days later on 16th Sep 1963.

What's the problem with this? You see a problem? What is it?

Besides, merger with Malaya was a brilliant move by the PAP.

 

[rodent2005]

To many foolish people, the Bible is a story written by "losers" because the Jews got dispersed and Jesus got crucified.

 

[kukubird58]

There is history that is researched, validated and published by historians. Then there is "history" found in the press, in school textbooks and government journals. There is enough qualified people all around the world to provide the necessary checks and balances.
The question is which version is being read by an individual. No doubt that there will be gaps.

hahaha...and u are one of the idiots who took wiki as a reliable source.
sometime i really wonder whether you are using a shared account...becuase some of the things u posted are so naive.

 

[kingrant]

Nothing's wrong with it. It's a statement that some people would not believe this story unless it is officially recorded in school textbooks on history. There are lots of little events in history that are part of the whole picture, and they become a mosaic in the fabric of history. We shldnt deny they existed just because they were not officially celebrated or repeatedly acknowledged. Some forummers here are that blur. The day after, it was reported in the Straits Times and this can be researched in official archives. Dont have to rely on wiki.

What's the problem with this? You see a problem? What is it?

Besides, merger with Malaya was a brilliant move by the PAP.

 

[HTOLAS]

Sir,

Wiki is not the only source for information on Singapore's UDI, but for a forum like this, it is just convenient. You might want to consult works by Edwin Lee, Joginder Singh Jessy and many others. Even popular business guides acknowledge this event - http://www.guidemesingapore.com/relocation/introduction/brief-history-of-singapore.

And the PAPzis no longer deny it, they just mention it without comment and bury it among many other events so we don't notice unless we pay attention.

hahaha...and u are one of the idiots who took wiki as a reliable source.
sometime i really wonder whether you are using a shared account...becuase some of the things u posted are so naive.

 

[kingrant]

On 31 August 1963, Lee Kuan Yew raised his fist in the air and shouted three times Merdeka on the steps of City Hall. He was triumphant and was clearly riding on the crest of history.

However, on 9th August 1965, Lee Kuan Yew appeared on public TV during a Press interview on the 'eviction' of Singapore from Malaysia. Although Singapore became defacto independent this time, instead of raising his fist and shouting Merdeka again, he wept uncontrollably, and he never raised his fist again.

Those who want to know why, better ask him while he is still around. I never bluff you one.

 

[Equalisation]

.... by how many lengths ?

 

[kukubird58]

Sir,

Wiki is not the only source for information on Singapore's UDI, but for a forum like this, it is just convenient. You might want to consult works by Edwin Lee, Joginder Singh Jessy and many others. Even popular business guides acknowledge this event - http://www.guidemesingapore.com/relocation/introduction/brief-history-of-singapore.
i think this 1 is quite clear with a little common sense.....

And the PAPzis no longer deny it, they just mention it without comment and bury it among many other events so we don't notice unless we pay attention.

hahaha.....have to disagree because the references u quoted are equally suspect....meaning they see the event at face value...
also common sense and simple logic will tell u that u that as a colony, u can only declare UDI if u have the means to oppose the master....
in 1963, lky has no means to defend against the British so how can he get away with UDI????
pse provide the link where papee mentioned without comment...i would to see the context of how it was mentioned.