Blog Topic Six (6)

How far do you agree that the need to set up a Common Market was the most important reason to a merger between Singapore and Malaya?
_____________________________________________________________________

I agree to a great extent that the need to set up a Common Market was the most important reason to a merger between Singapore and Malaya but I also believe that gaining complete freedom was also the one of the important reason.

Singapore lacked of natural resources and faced a declining entrepot trade and a growing population which required jobs. Entrepot in other countries were growing and it caused a decline in Singapore's entrepot. Meanwhile, Malaya introduced tariffs on goods traded between two countries and the PAP government felt that a merger with Malaya would bring a rapid economic growth as Common Market would be set up to support Singapore's new industries. Thus, this would increase trade, expand industries and create more jobs.

The PAP government also saw that Singapore's best hope for complete freedom was through a merger with Malaya. Although internal self-government was grant in 1959, there were still some areas such as defence and internal security under the British control. Thus, I think that the PAP government wanted to gain independence through the merger.

Therefore, although Common Market was a important reason for the merge, gaining complete freedom was also a important reason.

Blog Topic 5

Question:

Singapore's struggle to achieve internal self-government in the period 1945-1956 had its costs.

Was it worth it?

Give at least 2 reasons to support your stand.
_____________________________________________________________________

I think that it was worth to have the costs for internal self-government although riots, disagreements and unhappiness took place.

The first reason is that the british did not understand the needs of the people in Singapore. Riots such as, Anti-National Service riots and Maria Hertogh riots sparked off due to that. The Anti-National Service riots involved mostly chinese students who were anti-british and chinese. They striked because the British did not thought for those who were aged 18-20 but were still studying because of the delay caused by World War 2. And the Maria Hertogh riots happened due to lack of consideration of the British. The riots were meant for the British to take more notice but they failed to as many riots continued to take place due to unsatisfication of the people's need. This showed that the British was incapable of handling Singapore.

The second reason is that people who lived in Singapore understand the people more than the British. Knowing the needs of the people will not cause riots to take place as they know them better and unlike the British, not knowing anything of the needs and culture of people in Singapore and causes riots to take place.

Thus, i think that although deaths, injuries and chaos were created, it allowed the British to see that they are incapable to handle us and that the people of Singapore and this freed us to internal self-government.

Question: In your opinion, what could have prevented the Maria Hertogh riots in 1950? Give at least two suggestions.

In my opinion, I suggest that the Maria Hertogh case should be as enclosed as possible. They should not have revealed it to the public and when the verdicts are given out, it should take actions as fast as possible so that the public will not get to know the case since it is also a family issue.

And when the case is already opened to the public, they should have been prepared that people are unhappy with the decision and sent the police force to control places even before the public came to start the riot. This can prevent the riot to start.

Part of the reasons the riot started was also because Maria was sent to a catholic convent, not a muslim's. The British should have spared a thought and asked Maria which convent she wants to go to. If she made the choice of going to the catholic convent, the public do not have the rights to start a riot because of this. And even if a riot started off, it wouldn't have been worst than that which have happened.

Meanwhile, the judges did not consider who Maria wants to follow. They should take it into consideration that Maria is already a teenage. Although she does not seems to have rights to make consideration, I believe she knows who was best for her.

Thus, I feel that Maria Hertogh's riot can be prevented in a lot of ways.

Reflection Topic 3

Did the Industrial Revolution affect the way people lived and worked in the 19th century for the better or the worst?

Explain your answer by providing examples.
_____________________________________________________________________

I believe that the Industrial Revolution affected the way people lived and worked in the 19th century for the better as it provided us to produce large amount of clothes. People could only produce clothes for themselves, this meant that if they need to produce a lot of clothes to provide themselves with enough clothes everyday.
As one of the Industrial Revolution, steam engine, was produced, many factories were built and it provided more job oppourtunies.
Although it created material wealth, people were able to wear clothes without spending days on producing the clothes.
Thus, it produced better future although accidents happened at times.

Reflection Topic 2

I would choose Stamford Raffles' statue to be erected in-front of the museum because Tan Tock Seng already has a hospital which is so famous and big that everyone knows and he only helped by donating money to build hospital. Although he did a part to build up the Singapore we have today, it was Raffles who helped Singapore to cross over the first difficult situation, which is getting the first treaty with Sultan Hussein signed. Without Raffles, there will not be Singapore. Without Singapore, Tan Tock Seng will not be in Singapore. Thus, with Raffles, Singapore starts. With Raffles, Tan Tock Seng was then able to come to Singapore and build the hospital. Thus, Raffles is more important than Tan Tock Seng. And thus, his statue should be erected.

Who Really "Founded" Singapore?

I think that it would be neither of them because Sang Nila Utama only found the island, name it Singapura and left the island. Before Sang Nila Utama found Singapore, Singapore was already a port city, naming Temasek. Stamford Raffles founded it but there was already a sultanate, meaning someone had already founded Singapore. John Crawfurd only signed the treaty, he did not found the island and as for William Farquhar, he only established Singapore to a successful country. Since then, Raffles founded the island later than Sang Nila Utama and someone before Sang Nila Utama founded it and had already established it to a port city and as John Crawfurd and William Farquhar did not found the island, I conclude that Singapore is founded by someone else. Someone who is not in what we study, someone who we will never know. Thus, neither Sang Nila Utama, Stamford Raffles, John Crawfurd nor Willliam Farquhar is the founder of Singapore.