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 only to a small extent.

Yes, a common market was a reason to merger but it only stands at a small percentage of importance as there were also many other favourable conditions that the merger would offer.

One of another major reason was the political advantages that Singapore would be able to enjoy after merger. While internal self government was previously granted in 1959, there were still some areas like defence and internal security that were still under british control. Since Malaya was a independent nation, Singapore could achieve complete independence after merging with malaya.

Another reason was partly because of fear for Singapore to be fallen into communists' hands.

"Without merger, power in Singapore would be passed to the radicals. This will lead to a Communist base right in the heart of Southeast Asia with serious consequencesto the whole region. Knowing this, it is not unlikely that the British may prevent an independent Singapore from ever emerging."

It was taken from the Straits Times, 19 june 2005 and this showed us that political reasons were taken into consideration and that it was the most important reason. Tunku Abdul Rahman, the Prime Minister of Malaya at that time was also worrying about Communism. Initially, he opposed te idea of merger, but considering that merger would help him deal with communist threats and that the problem of Chinese population more than the malays solved, he decided to merge with Singapore, Sarawak and Sabba.

Of course, the Common market was also something that Singapore hoped to have with Malaya to improve on Singapore's economic growth. The PAP government felt that a merger with Malaya would bring about rapid economic growth. With this merger, Singapore hoped that a Comon market would be set up to support SIngapore's new industries. Within this Common Market, goods could be bought and sold freely without being taxed. This would increase trade, expand industries and create more jobs.

Lastly, setting up a Common Market is not the most important reason but the political reason. It was so clear that the people at that time yearned for complete freedom and to see their nation freed from colonial rule.

Singapore 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.

Firstly, before i start, i want to state the different struggles or important events that took place in the period 1945-1959 , Hock Lee Bus Riots,First Merdeka Talk, 1956 student's riot and the Second Merdeka talk really contributed to the internal self-government despite many destruction caused.

In my opinion, all that struggles are certainly worth it because without the talks, there will not be even the condition of internal self-government and without the riots, the Bitish would probably be unaware of the locals displeasure. These are the two reasons that i have in mind.

We must be really grateful to our forefathers for all that they had done for us as all those led to our nation being rules by ourselves and not by other people who discriminated against us. One very good example is David Mashall. Although he did not succeed in the First Merdeka Talk, I believe that he had already tried his very best in helping Singapore achieve internal self-gvernment. Besides, if there wasn't a First Merdeka Talk, I don't think there would be even a second one.

Secondly, all those riots were another struggle. The 1956 student's riot and the Hock Lee Bus Riot showed that the locals were really unhappy with the British. I think they would hate to see their country always on riots with killing of own friends and families being so common. I believe that all these were done because of unfavourable conditions. For example, the Hock Lee Bus Riot took place because of the fact that they want better pay and working comditions. Also,we cannot entirely blame the Chinese students for starting the riot. We to put ourselves in their shoes. If the present government discriminate against you, how would you feel? Wouldn't you be upset? Don't you want to have a say in your own country or have a bright future?

Lastly, i want to add that whatever they had done, i know that it was because of our country's interest. Although many deaths were resulted in the riots and displeasure caused by the talks, i believe that all these are worth it as what is more important than a country ruled by its own people?

question: in your opinion, what could have prevented the Maria Hertogh riots in 1950? give at least two suggestions

In the early 1950s, the people saw themselves as different races with no shared identity or destiny. Racial and religious sensitivities, if mishandled, could cause trouble as in the Maria Hertogh riots in 1950. Maria, a Dutch Catholic, was raised in a Muslim family during the Japanese Occupation when her Dutch parents were prisoners in Indonesia. The story began in 1942 when five-year old Maria was placed in the care of Che Aminah as her parents were about to be interned by the Japanese in Java. After the war, Maria's parents searched for the former in vain because by then, Che Aminah had settled in Kemaman, Trengganu. When she was finally found in early 1950 13-year old Maria was named Nadra and she had been brought up as a Muslim all along.

Her natural parents fought for her custody, but they lost in the first courtsuit. Later, in August, in the care of Che Aminah, Maria married Mansor Adabi. However in the second round of the custody battle the court ruled in favour of the Dutch parents, annulled Maria’s marriage to Mansor Adabi and placed her in a convent pending Che Aminah's appeal. While English papers showed pictures of Maria being contented and happy in her new home, the Malay papers flashed scenes of a bewildered Maria leaving her foster mother Che Aminah and husband Mansor Adabi. Both races were arguging and the tension was building up at an alarming rate. On Monday 11 December, the day when Che Aminah's appeal was to be heard, a large Muslim crowd carrying banners demanding that Maria be taken out of the convent, went berserk and began attacking every European they saw.

in my opinion, the judge must be firm with his decision. Since he had the authority to give the verdict, he should not change his mind as it will hurt more people in the process. I think that the judge should not change his mind after giving the custody to Che Aminah because after the first round of custody was won, she married to a muslim teacher. So, when the marriage was "cancelled" after the second round of custody , it angered the muslims as they thought that it was very disrespectful of them. had the judge remain his verdict, things would not be so complicated. maria would marry the teacher and would not feel that stressed up. Secondly, if the judge chose maria to return to her natural parents in the first place , at least, the pain would not be so great as she had not marry then. By then. she had lesser people to think of when she left them.

Secondly, i think the government did not handle it properly. Knowing that the verdict was not confirmed, they should not put mary into a catholic convent. they should put her into a government orphanage instead. Another thing that they should do was to control the media. they should at least set someone to guard the convent instead of letting them enter the convent. By doing that, a lot of photoes were taken and thus, rumours were spread across the land with the muslims opposing the eurasians. It would also cause mary to be stress and unhappy. If the government handled it properly, the result would not end off with a riot with so many people injured. the government could also stop the media from persueing that matter.

All in all, i think that the government at that time was the main cause of the problem and they should have handled it in a proper and firm way to stop all the disagreement.

topic 3

question: did the Industrial revolution affect the way people lived and worked in the 19th century for the better or worse?


Industrial revolution is the invention of new machines and the discovery of new sources of power to drive these machines brought about changes that led to industrial revolution.

In my opinion, i think that it had helped our society for the better and many things such as communication had improved.

Firstly, many machines were invented for the welfare of the people at that time. for example, making cloth by hand was a slow process in Britain in the 18th century and workers could only produce enough cloth for themselves. However, it did not end there, new machines like the spinning machine were inventedand they greatly changed the way goods were produced and even shortened the production time.

Also, a steam machine was invented. it worked when coal was burnt in the steam-engine to turn water into steam. the pressure from the steam provided the energy for machines to produce goods in great quantities. Hence, the use of machines also spread to the rest of Europe.

As machines increased, they were located in factories and thus, many workers tend to work there. instead of working at home. Europeans also started to produce their goods in great quantities and at a faster rate.

From then on, many european and american made Singapore their port-of-call and that meant that more people would come to Singapore and the possibility of trade prospering would certaintly increase. As Singapore was situated at the right position of being a port-of-call, the collection of goods from the East and the distribution of manufactured goods from the West gained importance.

Lastly, communication had improved rapidly as a result of the arrival of the steamships. Letters , which usually took about four to five months to arrive from Europe in the days of the sailing ships reduced to around five weeks. With the reduced time, our country came into closer contact with Britain and the rest of the world.

In conclusion, i think that industrial revolution affected our society greatly.

You have to make a choice between erecting Raffles' or Tan Tock Seng's statue in front of the museum

Question: The national museum has decided to erect a statue in front of its entrance. they have to choose between Stamford Raffles and Tan Tock Seng. If you were working for the museum, who would you choose. Why?

In my opinion, i think that the museum shouold keep Tan Tock Seng's statue and not Raffles. Museum in the dictionary means a buiding where important cultural , historic or scientific objects are kept and shown to the public.

To me, i think that it should be Tan Tock Seng because he contributed more than Raffles.Yes, i would agree that it was not for Raffles that Singapore would not even advanced as a trading settlement. It would still be a quiet fishing village.

I think that Tan Tock Seng's contribution should be shared with the public for he had done many things for Singapore.

He was born in Melaka and came to Singapore at the age of 21. After working for a few years, he became rich but did not ignore the poor. He founded a pauper hospital in Pearl's Hill where the immigrants could seek medical help at little or no cost.

Altough he was one of the richest at that time, he often donated sums to the charity. Being a ardent Taoist, he believed that a decent funeral should be conducted for the dead. So, he paid for funerals for families who could not afford it and to those whose bodies were unclaimed. he had a passion for the poor and sick and as everyone knows, he founded Tan Tock Seng hospital.

Not only did he contributed in the medical area, he was also a leader of the chinese community and was the first to to be appointed as the Justice of the Peace. he helped in settling problems and disputes in the chinese community.

All in all, i think that it should be Tan Tock Seng whose statue should be there instead of Raffles.

Who really founded Singapore?

Sir Stamford Raffles is popularly regarded and honoured as the founder and
“Architect of Singapore “.Places and institutions bearing his name have a good reputation. The statues of Raffles standing beside the Old Parliament House and in front of the Victoria concert hall are reminders of his role in the settlement of Singapore. His founding role is reflected in books, journals and articles on the history of Singapore.

So what did Raffles did that made him the true founder of Singapore?

Initially, Raffles started his search for an ideal place for the British to start a new trading settlement and he believed that Singapore was a suitable port as Singapore had its natural advantages like excellent harbour and a good supply of drinking water.

On January 28, 1819, the British reached Singapore and saw a small part of the island filled with sand and the others, covered with jungles and mangrove trees. Raffles then heard that the Dutch were not on the island.

After hearing the story of succession dispute between Tengku Abdul Rahman and Tengku hassein, Raffles decided to invite Tengku Hessein to Singapore secretly so as to prevent the Dutch to suspect anything.

On meeting Raffles in Singapore, Tengku Hassein agreed to be the new Sultan, recognized by the British. They soon signed the treaty with the British and allowed them to build the settlement in the southern part of Singapore.

Why do i regard Raffles as our "real founder"?

In my opinion, I think that Raffles should be the “real founder” as he was the one who signed the treaty and gone through lots of difficulty with handling the Dutch and many more problems.
Although he leave Singapore not long after, he had done a lot for us and I thought that without him, there would not be Singapore today and we would be probably still under the Dutch as the power of the Dutch was very strong at that time. Without him, I guess we would not even had a chance to improve as there was not even a settlement to start off with.

Thanks for reading…