sinkipore joining mudland is like israel joining nazi germany. we are free and #1 in sinkipore before being annexed by m&ds, but become 2 class citizens after annexed queing behind the m&ds for everythings and being forced to learn that muddy language worse. never never be part of mudland ever.
-
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.
Indefensible.....papee white-washing Singapore history
- Thread starter kukubird58
- Start date
there's one cumming when dear leader farts his last flatulence. :o
me wish him good health and a longer life :o:o:o
Or a longer afterlife before rebirth.
then he'll get to see next GE's results
They may not let him see.
:p
hahaha....I can live without SBF...I will retire if proven that Singapore was already considered an independent country for 15 days in 1963.
My basic charactor is too straight forward for all these double standard and cronyism in sbf.
Back to the subject, I am very surprise that there are so many people who believed that Singapore was already independent for 15 days and yet
it was not mentioned in any history books....something is not correct.
My style is straight forward.....why was this part that Singapore was independent for 15 days in 1963 completely omitted from Singapore history???
In this internet age, how can such a fact remained unchallenged by any academics/historians not only in Singapore but Malaysia/Britain and the whole world???
My point is that a lot of people are misled by what is written in wiki and other internet sources......I took the trouble to search the ST dated 1 Sep 1963 and found some missing key words form the internet sources...
http://newspapers.nl.sg/Digitised/Page/straitstimes19630901-1.1.1.aspx
First, it was not even the main headline for the edition.
Second, it was headlined as "WE ARE FREE- Primier proclaims independence in foreign affairs".
It does not appear to me to be a declaration of a sovereign independent country.
Third, in the first paragraph, the word de facto independence was used...instead of just independence.
In the 4th paragraph:
"We look upon ouselves as trustees for the Federal Government in these 15days. We will exercise these powers in the interest of Malaysia"
this clearly showed that proclaimation was in form and not substance.
As a sovereign independent country, how can Singapore Government act as trustees for the Federal Government and publicly announce that it will act in the interests of other country.
If Singapore was already independent and such a fact is omitted in our history books, should not the opps parties used this point as ammo to hit at papee in this opportune time when a close fight is expected in PE BE??
Surely cannot be just a mortley gang in SBF attacking kukubird only???
What is holding the opps parties back???
Surely you cannot get sued for stating a fact???
If in the process, Singapore history is corrected in our history books....kukubird will retire form sbf...period.
My basic charactor is too straight forward for all these double standard and cronyism in sbf.
Back to the subject, I am very surprise that there are so many people who believed that Singapore was already independent for 15 days and yet
it was not mentioned in any history books....something is not correct.
My style is straight forward.....why was this part that Singapore was independent for 15 days in 1963 completely omitted from Singapore history???
In this internet age, how can such a fact remained unchallenged by any academics/historians not only in Singapore but Malaysia/Britain and the whole world???
My point is that a lot of people are misled by what is written in wiki and other internet sources......I took the trouble to search the ST dated 1 Sep 1963 and found some missing key words form the internet sources...
http://newspapers.nl.sg/Digitised/Page/straitstimes19630901-1.1.1.aspx
First, it was not even the main headline for the edition.
Second, it was headlined as "WE ARE FREE- Primier proclaims independence in foreign affairs".
It does not appear to me to be a declaration of a sovereign independent country.
Third, in the first paragraph, the word de facto independence was used...instead of just independence.
In the 4th paragraph:
"We look upon ouselves as trustees for the Federal Government in these 15days. We will exercise these powers in the interest of Malaysia"
this clearly showed that proclaimation was in form and not substance.
As a sovereign independent country, how can Singapore Government act as trustees for the Federal Government and publicly announce that it will act in the interests of other country.
If Singapore was already independent and such a fact is omitted in our history books, should not the opps parties used this point as ammo to hit at papee in this opportune time when a close fight is expected in PE BE??
Surely cannot be just a mortley gang in SBF attacking kukubird only???
What is holding the opps parties back???
Surely you cannot get sued for stating a fact???
If in the process, Singapore history is corrected in our history books....kukubird will retire form sbf...period.
Last edited:
Some parts of history are insignificant. Singapore's 15-day independence was insignificant as it was merely a transitionery step - it was necessary for Singapore and Borneo to be independent to join Malaysia.
History has similarly ignored the fact that Germany and Japan were once American colonies.
History has similarly ignored the fact that Germany and Japan were once American colonies.
Whether it is significant is not thepoint...if we were independent for 15 days....and it is a fact, why can't it be a one liner in our history books?????
why is it mentioned in the internet sources???
Last edited:
do let HSK know about this glaring omission :p:p:p
hahaha...the same singapore flag was used since 1959 when we were granted self government.
hahaha...yes, it can be one liner to state the fact and dispel any doubt....
this is not politicking but seeking the truth..
surely the opps parties owe it to their supporters to take this up to papee...
Last edited:
That is not insignificant. America up till today is still taking care of Japan's national security. America up till today still has military bases in Germany (not true before WWII)
A few things, "de facto independence" means that it is a real independence. The word "de facto" means no bullshit. Genuine stuff cannot bluff.
At that point in time, since 1959 Singapore had been self-governing in all respects other than foreign affairs, which was handled by the British. So it is correct to say that Singapore is proclaiming independence in foreign affairs because it has changed.
There was an interim of 15 days during which Singapore was independent. De facto independent, meaning no bullshit independent. That is because during the period since 1959 Singapore had been a "self governing crown colony" meaning it was administered directly by the British, not as a part of a larger colony. Not as a part of Malaya. Then on 1 Sept, the British left, and Singapore was independent. Then on 16 Sept, Singapore joined Malaysia. There were two changes, so they involved two steps, 15 days apart.
A lot of things weren't done because everybody knew this "independence" was temporary. Regardless, independence - particularly DE FACTO independence, is independence.
At that point in time, since 1959 Singapore had been self-governing in all respects other than foreign affairs, which was handled by the British. So it is correct to say that Singapore is proclaiming independence in foreign affairs because it has changed.
There was an interim of 15 days during which Singapore was independent. De facto independent, meaning no bullshit independent. That is because during the period since 1959 Singapore had been a "self governing crown colony" meaning it was administered directly by the British, not as a part of a larger colony. Not as a part of Malaya. Then on 1 Sept, the British left, and Singapore was independent. Then on 16 Sept, Singapore joined Malaysia. There were two changes, so they involved two steps, 15 days apart.
A lot of things weren't done because everybody knew this "independence" was temporary. Regardless, independence - particularly DE FACTO independence, is independence.
Are you even educated? De facto means in substance but not in form. It would be correct to say Taiwan is de facto independent but not to say Singapore is de facto independent. That is because officially Taiwan is not recognized as independent by most countries.
Foreign affairs was not the only thing the British controlled - they held on to external defence as well. They were also kept informed about internal affairs.
The British also did not leave on 1 Sep 1963. They just did not act immediately on the UDI. I suspect they were complicit; after all, since they were still in charge of external affairs, they would have had the military means to stop LKY. Also, because merger was only a short time away, they saw no need to begin a process that would result in an outcome they could not handle.
As for the rest of your post, I'm not sure I understand your meaning or purpose.
The British also did not leave on 1 Sep 1963. They just did not act immediately on the UDI. I suspect they were complicit; after all, since they were still in charge of external affairs, they would have had the military means to stop LKY. Also, because merger was only a short time away, they saw no need to begin a process that would result in an outcome they could not handle.
As for the rest of your post, I'm not sure I understand your meaning or purpose.
Similar threads
