How far do you agree that the need to set up a common market was the most important reason for merger between Singapore and Malaya.
I agree to quite a large extent. Firstly, Singapore was going through quite a tough period of time as it had just gained Independence. The PAP was worried as Singapore lacked natural resources and was facing a declining entrepot trade and a rising population which came with a demand for jobs. Plus, the Malayan government had also introduced import and export tariffs on goods that were trade between Singapore and Malaya, which would have quite an impact on Singapore and its people.
The PAP government thought that by merging with Malaya, it would bring about a rapid economic growth. Of course, we also hoped that a Common Market be set up due to the merge. With a Common Market, people would be able buy and sell goods freely without having to pay taxes. This would increase trade, expand industries and create more jobs for the people of Singapore.
Of course, there were other reasons for merger, but at that time, Singapore needed an economic boost, and a Common Market was the solution. So in conclusion, the need to set up a Common Market was one of the important reasons for merger.
Wednesday, September 26, 2007
Wednesday, August 29, 2007
Blog Topic 5
Singapore's struggle to achieve internal self-government in the period 1945 - 1959 had its costs. Was it worth it? Give at least 2 reasons to support your stand.
Of course it was worth it. If we hadn't made an effort to achieve self-government, we would probably still be under the control of the British.
The British didn't understand and treat Singapore like their how they would treat their own country. They treated Singapore as a place where they had power over the people and a place where there was prosperity and they could make lots of money out of trades and such.
Firstly, the local people of Singapore express their dissatisfaction with the British through many riots throughout 1945 and 1959, just to name a few, the Anti-National Service riots and the Hock Lee Bus riots.Even thought much destruction was caused in our country. The message it conveyed to the British made them wake up that we were not at all happy with how the British was ruling us. More and more riots took place as the British couldn't control them properly and didn't bother to make changes that caused these riots in the first place.
Secondly, The British were being a little biased towards other races which is unfair for the people of Singapore, which is also unjust considering that the British were the governing us. Also it would be more appropriate that if the local people ruled Singapore. The local people of Singapore knew the people best. They knew what living conditions they were living in and they knew how hard it was to earn a living at that time. Honestly, i really think that the local people would govern us better than the British.
In conclusion i definitely think that Singapore's struggle for internal self-government was worth it, despite all its costs.
Of course it was worth it. If we hadn't made an effort to achieve self-government, we would probably still be under the control of the British.
The British didn't understand and treat Singapore like their how they would treat their own country. They treated Singapore as a place where they had power over the people and a place where there was prosperity and they could make lots of money out of trades and such.
Firstly, the local people of Singapore express their dissatisfaction with the British through many riots throughout 1945 and 1959, just to name a few, the Anti-National Service riots and the Hock Lee Bus riots.Even thought much destruction was caused in our country. The message it conveyed to the British made them wake up that we were not at all happy with how the British was ruling us. More and more riots took place as the British couldn't control them properly and didn't bother to make changes that caused these riots in the first place.
Secondly, The British were being a little biased towards other races which is unfair for the people of Singapore, which is also unjust considering that the British were the governing us. Also it would be more appropriate that if the local people ruled Singapore. The local people of Singapore knew the people best. They knew what living conditions they were living in and they knew how hard it was to earn a living at that time. Honestly, i really think that the local people would govern us better than the British.
In conclusion i definitely think that Singapore's struggle for internal self-government was worth it, despite all its costs.
Monday, July 16, 2007
Topic 4
In your opinion, what could have prevented the Maria Hertogh riots in 1950. Give at least 2 suggestions. I believe that the government had a big part to play in trying to prevent the riots from breaking out.
First of all, the courts shouldn't have allowed Maria to carry on switching between her foster parents and her real parents during the trial, this caused much confusion to Maria. The courts, you can say, were a little bias when they placed maria in a convent when they clearly knew that she was raised as a Muslim. They should have respected the Muslim religion and not anger her foster parents even more. Placing her in a convent offended the Muslim beliefs.
Furthermore, i feel that they could have stopped those photographers from entering the convent and taking pictures of Maria and putting them in the newspapers. The Muslim supporters of her foster parents were outraged by this. As we all know that the newspapers and media had a very big impact on the people, with the news of maria being placed in a convent, many Muslims got to know about it and felt that the British were not respecting their religion. If those pictures had not made it into the newspapers, perhaps some of the anger from the Muslims could have been adverted.
Also, on the day that the verdict was made, British officials should have sealed off the Padang area to avoid crowds gathering to witness the verdict. This could have prevented the Muslims from taking action immediately. As the Muslims had the idea that the British were taking sides with the Dutch, they got even more infuriated.
I believe that if precautions had been taken, and if the British was more understanding, many lives would be saved and many people wouldn't be injured due to this riot.
First of all, the courts shouldn't have allowed Maria to carry on switching between her foster parents and her real parents during the trial, this caused much confusion to Maria. The courts, you can say, were a little bias when they placed maria in a convent when they clearly knew that she was raised as a Muslim. They should have respected the Muslim religion and not anger her foster parents even more. Placing her in a convent offended the Muslim beliefs.
Furthermore, i feel that they could have stopped those photographers from entering the convent and taking pictures of Maria and putting them in the newspapers. The Muslim supporters of her foster parents were outraged by this. As we all know that the newspapers and media had a very big impact on the people, with the news of maria being placed in a convent, many Muslims got to know about it and felt that the British were not respecting their religion. If those pictures had not made it into the newspapers, perhaps some of the anger from the Muslims could have been adverted.
Also, on the day that the verdict was made, British officials should have sealed off the Padang area to avoid crowds gathering to witness the verdict. This could have prevented the Muslims from taking action immediately. As the Muslims had the idea that the British were taking sides with the Dutch, they got even more infuriated.
I believe that if precautions had been taken, and if the British was more understanding, many lives would be saved and many people wouldn't be injured due to this riot.
Wednesday, April 18, 2007
Reflections topic 3
Did the Industrial Revolution affect the way people lived and worked in the 19th century for the better or worse?
In my opinion, the Industrial Revolution improved the lives of many people not only in Europe but also the rest of the world.
Between 1750 and 1850, many new machinery were invented - the Industrial Revolution.
Many new inventions were created such as the spinning machine. Such inventions greatly shortened the time goods were produced which means less labour for workers. As more factories opened to house these inventions, more people had to be hired to help run these machines.
Another important invention was the steam machine which soon lead to the railway trains and steam ships. As more goods were being manufactured, raw materials were in demand. Europe thus turned to countries like Asia and even Singapore for this supply of raw materials.
With these inventions like railway trains and steam ships, travelling time was cut short which meant the increase in ships visiting Singapore. This lead to a drastic growth in trade. Many ships also stopped in Singapore to refuel and to obtain food supplies. People in Singapore also took advantage of these steamships to transport their goods between Singapore and other ports. Singapore's port became of great importance to many people.
This leads back to my opinion that the Industrial Revolution affected the way people lived and worked in the 19th century for the better.
In my opinion, the Industrial Revolution improved the lives of many people not only in Europe but also the rest of the world.
Between 1750 and 1850, many new machinery were invented - the Industrial Revolution.
Many new inventions were created such as the spinning machine. Such inventions greatly shortened the time goods were produced which means less labour for workers. As more factories opened to house these inventions, more people had to be hired to help run these machines.
Another important invention was the steam machine which soon lead to the railway trains and steam ships. As more goods were being manufactured, raw materials were in demand. Europe thus turned to countries like Asia and even Singapore for this supply of raw materials.
With these inventions like railway trains and steam ships, travelling time was cut short which meant the increase in ships visiting Singapore. This lead to a drastic growth in trade. Many ships also stopped in Singapore to refuel and to obtain food supplies. People in Singapore also took advantage of these steamships to transport their goods between Singapore and other ports. Singapore's port became of great importance to many people.
This leads back to my opinion that the Industrial Revolution affected the way people lived and worked in the 19th century for the better.
Tuesday, March 6, 2007
Reflections 2
The National Museum has decided to erect a statue in front of its entrance and they have to choose between Sir Stamford Raffles and Tan Tock Seng.If you were working for the museum, who would you choose and why?
I would most likely choose to errect Tan Tock Seng. Yes, Raffles did do a great number of things for Singapore, and he is well known as the founder of Singapore by most Singaporeans. Many of us would recognise this name; Tan Tock Seng Hospital. But how many of us really know what Tan Tock Seng did for us?
Tan Tock Seng arrived in Singapore in 1819. He founded a pauper hospital in Pearl's Hill which he took in many immigrants, whom which he didn't even know, and took care of them. Considered the richest man and entrepreneur in Singapore at that time, he donated a considerable amount into buying medicine and health care products for these patients.
Being a devoted Taoist, he believed that everyone should have a proper burial when they die. He paid for the funeral expenses for those families that could not afford it. Considering that he didn't know most of these people, this act of kindness earned him a great deal of respect from fellow Singaporeans.
He was also the first Asian to be accorded the title Kapitan of the Hokkien Clan. He was a great leader and helped in settling problems and disputes in the Chinese community.
Tan Tock Seng took money from his own pocket to help the poor and the sick. He was willing to pay for decent burials for people he didn't know. He showed great leadership in leading the Chinese community. Tan Tock Seng has done a great number of good things for the poeple in Singapore. I think that Tan Tock Seng deserves far more respect than anyone of us gives him.
I choose Tan Tock Seng as he should have the recognition of a great man.
I would most likely choose to errect Tan Tock Seng. Yes, Raffles did do a great number of things for Singapore, and he is well known as the founder of Singapore by most Singaporeans. Many of us would recognise this name; Tan Tock Seng Hospital. But how many of us really know what Tan Tock Seng did for us?
Tan Tock Seng arrived in Singapore in 1819. He founded a pauper hospital in Pearl's Hill which he took in many immigrants, whom which he didn't even know, and took care of them. Considered the richest man and entrepreneur in Singapore at that time, he donated a considerable amount into buying medicine and health care products for these patients.
Being a devoted Taoist, he believed that everyone should have a proper burial when they die. He paid for the funeral expenses for those families that could not afford it. Considering that he didn't know most of these people, this act of kindness earned him a great deal of respect from fellow Singaporeans.
He was also the first Asian to be accorded the title Kapitan of the Hokkien Clan. He was a great leader and helped in settling problems and disputes in the Chinese community.
Tan Tock Seng took money from his own pocket to help the poor and the sick. He was willing to pay for decent burials for people he didn't know. He showed great leadership in leading the Chinese community. Tan Tock Seng has done a great number of good things for the poeple in Singapore. I think that Tan Tock Seng deserves far more respect than anyone of us gives him.
I choose Tan Tock Seng as he should have the recognition of a great man.
Thursday, January 25, 2007
Who Really 'Founded' Singapore
Who really founded Singapore? Was it Sir Stamford Raffles? Some say it was William Farquhar, others say it was John Crawfurd.
In my opinion, Sit Stamford Raffles was the true founder of Singapore. Sure, William Farquhar and John Crawfurd did contribute to what Singapore was today. After all, it was William Farquhar that was in charge of the settlement after Raffles left for Bencoolen and had the difficult job for starting up the new settlement. It was John Crawfurd that signed that treaty and made Singapore a British Colony.
But we have to consider this. If Raffles had not wanted to set up a trading settlement in Singapore. Would William Farquhar have been put in charged of starting up the settlement. Would John Crawfurd sign that treaty that made Singapore a British colony if the Dutch still had control over it.
Sir Stamford Raffles was the one who had the ambition to set up a trading settlement near the Straits of Melaka. It was he that spotted Singapore and thought of it as an ideal place for the settlement. It was he that made the decision of recognising Tengku Hussein as the real Sultan of Singapore. It was him that decided to sign that treaty that allowed the British to build a settlement in Singapore.
True, the Dutch was angry at Raffles and protested strongly agaisnt the trading settlement in Singapore. But Raffles fought hard and the Dutch finally allowed the British to set up a trading settlement in Singapore by signing the Anglo-Dutch Treaty.
Sir Stamford Raffles has done many great things for Singapore and I think that we should at least acknowledge him as the true founder of Singapore.
In my opinion, Sit Stamford Raffles was the true founder of Singapore. Sure, William Farquhar and John Crawfurd did contribute to what Singapore was today. After all, it was William Farquhar that was in charge of the settlement after Raffles left for Bencoolen and had the difficult job for starting up the new settlement. It was John Crawfurd that signed that treaty and made Singapore a British Colony.
But we have to consider this. If Raffles had not wanted to set up a trading settlement in Singapore. Would William Farquhar have been put in charged of starting up the settlement. Would John Crawfurd sign that treaty that made Singapore a British colony if the Dutch still had control over it.
Sir Stamford Raffles was the one who had the ambition to set up a trading settlement near the Straits of Melaka. It was he that spotted Singapore and thought of it as an ideal place for the settlement. It was he that made the decision of recognising Tengku Hussein as the real Sultan of Singapore. It was him that decided to sign that treaty that allowed the British to build a settlement in Singapore.
True, the Dutch was angry at Raffles and protested strongly agaisnt the trading settlement in Singapore. But Raffles fought hard and the Dutch finally allowed the British to set up a trading settlement in Singapore by signing the Anglo-Dutch Treaty.
Sir Stamford Raffles has done many great things for Singapore and I think that we should at least acknowledge him as the true founder of Singapore.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)