The End Of Reflection!

Question topic: How far do you agree that the need to set up a commom market was the most important reasons for merger between singapore and malaya?

Personally, i only do agree to a certain extend. Firstly, the economic of Singapore was facing declining entrepot and economic wasnt good. Also Singapore have only one natural resources which is human therefore, there is a need for Singapore to import natural resources.

Unfortunately, Malaya introduced import and export tariffs on goods traded between the two countries. Therefore by setting up a common market would enable Singapore to trade the goods freely which will encourage more industries to be develop in Singapore to boast our economic growth and solve our economical problems. Also by merging, more jobs would be available for Singaporean to solve the jobless problem which Singapore faced.

The other factor is that Singapore had full self government at that moment. Therefore, the next step for Singapore is to break freely from the British, so by merging with malaya would break Singapore free from the british. About 71% of Singaporean voted to merge wif Malaya in order to be full independent shows the determination of Singaporean. But i still personally think the economical problems are still more important reason than full independent as a independent country with an poor economic will not survive but instead a colonie country with good economic will survive. Therefore i still feel that independent isnt the main reason but only part of the reason.

Lastly, the communist in Singapore is increasing their power since BS is formed and it weakened the power of PAP. Therefore by merging with Malayan could solve the communist problem. But i only agree that this reason is only part of the merger but the main reason is still economic.

So in my conclusion, i agree to certain extend that setting up common market the reason because both communist and independent are also the reasons of the PAP's decision.

Feel free to comment :D
~M.KwanG~

Fifth Reflection..

Question: Singapore struggle to achieve internal self government in the period 1945 - 1959 had its cost. Was it worth it? Give at least two reasons to support your stand.


It was definately worth it. If all our past leaders did not struggle to achieve internal self government, we wouldnt be what we are today. We would not have a strong educational forces, strict enforced laws, great leadership, strong economic boast, strong military forces, great technology advancement and the most important racial harmony which doesnt exist in most countries.

First reason is that the british did not fully understand of what the people living in singapore needs. They were just doing whatever which would provide them the best profit. Example like before Singapore were independent, British neglected the education and health service and were more focus on trades. Which shows that their not ruling Singapore because they want the best for Singapore.

Also the atitude of the british were selfish, british did not want to give the local full power shows that british is power hungry and also they did not intend to give David Marshall an office when his elected for Cheif minister. By not intending to give an office to David Marshall, it shows the selfishness of the british government. How can a government shows this kind of atitude? Singapore could NEVER progress from the leadership with such an atitude shown.

Riots symbolise the unhappiness of the locals towards the british. If the locals cannot cooperate with the government, then the country would fall. Unlike now, most Singaporean cooperate with the current government which makes the people contented. Also many riots were due to insensitive of the British like Maria Hertogh riot and also NS riot.

Also the British did not emphasis on education and especially chinese education. British shown biased towards Chinese educators. Many evidence have shown the incapable of the british government in the past. If our leaders during that time did not determine to get independent for us, we would not be what we are today and being a colonial country doesnt give us a sense of belonging towards country.

So it was definately worth it despite all the loss of lives were sacrified. I am proud of what we are today and what we have done in the past! I am definately proud to say i am a Singaporean!

~M.KwanG~

The 4th Reflection!

Topic: In your opinon, what could have prevented the Maria Hertogh riots in 1950? (Give at least two suggestions.)

The Maria Hertogh riot was one of the bloodiest riots in the whole of Singapore history. This riot involve bloodsheds, 18 deaths and 173 injured. The riot started on 11 December 1950.

During World War II, as Maria's Dutch catholic parents were taken away by the Japanese and her parents entrusted Maria Hertogh to Che Aminah and her husband. They named Maria Hertogh as a muslim name call Nadra and also brought her up as a Muslim.

In 1949, Maria's biological parents, Adeline Hertogh came back to claim Maria back. This case was brought to the court in May 1950 and the court ruled that Maria be returned to her natural parents. Che Aminah appealed to the court and two months later, the court returned Maria to Che Aminah.

Under Che Aminah's care, Maria went through a narriage ceremony with a Malay teacher. Maria was 13 years old then. In Novomber 1950, the battle for custody continued and the court once again ruled that Maria should be returned to biological parents and also unfortunately, according to dutch laws, Maria's marriage was not recognised as she was under-aged and her biological father did not approve the marriage. This incident upset the Muslim community and they felt that Muslim law was not respected and it stirred up "Anti-British" feeling.

Meanwhile, the court put Maria in the care of a Catholic convent in Thomas Road. There was a widespread coverage of custody battle in all the English, tamil and malay newspaper. Photographers and reporters entered the convent and took many pictures of Maria.

After several disputes, there came the final court hearing. On 11 December 1950, large crowds gathered outside the court at the Padang to know the result. The judges rejected Che Aminah's appeal thus a riot started.

Large crowds gathered outside the court vented their anger unreservingly. Any European and Eurasian in sight were attacked by the Malays. Cars were badly destroyed.

The riot continued for three days and a 24-hour curfew had to be imposed for two weeks. British troops, Malay troops and the Singapore police all had to be involved to control the riot and maintain law and order.

In my opinon, many things could have prevented this riot. Firstly, there were many miscommunication within the judges. In result, many confusion were done like Maria been returned to her biological parents then after 2 months Maria was returned to Che Aminah then once again Maria was returned back to her biological parents and this repeating confusion stir up anger from the Muslim. If judges would all come to only one firm decision, the riot wouldnt had occur.

Secondly, Maria should not had been placed into a catholic convent while the Muslim was starting to stir up the "anti-british" feeling, by doing that it would make the Muslim feel more "anti-british" By placing Maria into catholic convent would symbolise to Muslim that the judge were siding to the Dutch/British.

Thirdly, the government should had prevented all those photographers and news reporter into the catholic convent to prevent further misunderstanding. If the government had took the precaution, it would had prevented the riot too.

Fourthly, since both Che Aminah and Maria's biological parents loved Maria. The reason their fighting over Maria was mainly because that they loved her. Since their intention was love toward Maria, why not sit down and calm down and solve the problem instead of bringing it to court? By bringing up the court would emotional hurt and pressurize Maria.

Firth point was that if the government would have made an public apologise of miscommunication within the Court's result and confusion, things were turned so badly.

Sixth point, the government should had send some Polices and army to standby there outside the court to prevent the risk of riot to the least.

Seventh Point was that the judgers should also spare a thought for Muslim Law. They should be more sensitive towards the Muslim and take necessary precautious.

In my conclusion, there were many ways more to prevent this riot. The lack of precaution from the government, in result riot occur and many bloodsheds.

RefLecTion TRee!

Question! : Did the industrial Revolution affect the way people lived and worked in the 19th century for the better or worst?

In my personal opinion, the industrial Revolution affected the way people lived and worked in the 19th century for the worst. Yes although people's life generally improved but also more people are frame of wealth. That's where greed came. Before industrial revolution, everything was simple. Sometimes, simple could be the best way of life. Why is human making life so difficult with cruelty, harsh and mean.

Yes, there could be many advantages which many people agreed with like better transport and communication system, higher technology and better economical impact but are we really happy? Isn't living simple but happy without any "frame of wealth" thoughts better than having high technology but so many sin and cruelty around? Things are simple but human made it confusing. Just take the example of global warming, it's the reason where human own selfishness and maybe without this high technology, there might not be a global warming problem occur now.

Life generally improved, but the industrial revolution also proved harmful. Pollution increased, working conditions were harmful, and capitalists employed women and young children, making them work long and hard hours.

In the 19th century, population continued to grow. In many countries, population doubled. The Agriculture impact quite a huge economic impact as agricultural production became more intensive and most business needed raw material. As more and more company is set up, the needs of manpower was needed too.

Another negative side of Industrial Revolution is Child labour, Many young children at that time was hired as scavengers and piecers. Scavengers had to pick up the loose cotton from under the machinery. Piecers had to lean over the spinning-machine to repair the broken threads. This was extremely dangerous as the children were expected to carry out the task while the machine was still working. The main reason why young children is employed was because the company could pay low wage and high working hours for the children.Children who were late for work were severely punished. If children arrived late for work they would also have money deducted from their wages. Time-keeping was a problem for those families who could not afford to buy a clock.

Many workers were typically unemployed at least part of the year, and their wages were relatively low when they did work. This situation led many workers to support and join labor unions. Meanwhile, farmers also faced hard times as technology and increasing production led to more competition and falling prices for farm products. Hard times on farms led many young people to move to the city in search of better job opportunities.

Deforestation, pollution, hunting wild animals for oneself greed and destroying the nature had been taken place. Another negative side is that, those businessman who had competition of rivalry company, they would do any method to destroy the rivalry's business for it's own success. Is all these worth for just improving life? It might be worth it for you but it does not worth for me.


~M.KwanG~

RefLecTion 2

Topic : The National museum have decided to erect a statue in front of it's entrance. They have to choose between Stamford Raffles and Tan Tock Seng. If you were working for museum, who would you choose?

Well, if i'm given a choice to choose one of them, i would choose Mr Tan Tock Seng. Well in my opinion, although Raffles was the founder of Singapore and build the foundation but all he did was the foundation but not the process of it. Building process of it means way more than just building a foundation in my opinion. Raffles build the foundation because British was needing a trading spot and Singapore was the best and only choice, so Raffles did not help Singapore willing and there is currently 1 Raffles statue in front of Victoria Hall already.

Tan Tock Seng was a prosperous Singapore businessman of the early 1800s, known particularly for his generosity to the poor. He contributed heavily to the 1844 construction of a new hospital for the indigent, which was then named Tan Tock Seng Hospital. He helped the poor and build new hospital for indigent willingly, no one forced Mr Tan Tock Seng to donate and help. And in the early 1800s, most Singaporean were poor and could not even afford three meals per day. So in my opinion helping out in the past compare to now require more effort.

Comparing the situation of Raffles And Mr Tan Hock Seng, Raffles was more sort of being forced to help Singapore since Singapore was the only best choice left for British trading spot, and all Raffles did was just build foundation. But Mr Tan Hock Seng was more sort of willing to help with his heart, he could have just save the money for himself instead of donating to the poor and help to build new hospital. He was known for his generosity and his most famous gesture was the gift of $5,000 to build the Tan Tock Seng Hospital in 1844. $5000 seem a small amount now but the value of it in the past was really big. He also gave widely to other charitable causes, for example, the burial of destitute Chinese, as a proper funeral was important for the Chinese, rich or poor.

"the burial of destitute Chinese, as a proper funeral was important for the Chinese, rich or poor." that shows he believe in Chinese traditional culture, he do it himself and he make sure that other Singaporean who believe in that Chinese culture could afford it too. He even help the poor to make funeral if they could not afford. So that's the reason i choose Mr Tan Tock Seng, I think he really deserve a good credit. Nowadays Singaporean should really learn from Mr Tan Tock Seng's spirit.

Copy Not Right by the way, not Copy Right :P
~TMK~

Who really 'founded' Singapore?

Sir Stamford Raffles was the founder of Singapore in my opinon. There were evidences which clearly shows that Raffles was the founder of Singapore. Singapore under Raffles's decision and changes, slowly it became better and better. Raffles was the one who considered Singapore for 3rd british trading port.

There were many problems like succession Disputes between Tengku Abdul Rahman and Tengku Hussein in the process of making a settlement in Singapore. Raffles handled each problems that he faced pratically and wisely. Example of the Sucession Disputes, Tengku Abdul Rahman who was the younger son was made to Sultan instead of Tengku Hussein. Tengku Abdul Rahman was somehow under Dutch, so Dutch claim that Singapore was under Dutch indirectly.

But according to the rule last time, it's always elder brother who would be made to Sultan instead of younger brother and there wasnt any evidence which shows that Tengku Abdul Rahman was appointed to sultan by his father. Raffles took the advantages of that point and decided to recognise Tengku Hussein as the rightful Sultan and make use of Tengu hussein to support Raffles for allowing raffles to build a settlement in the southern part of Singapore island.

Raffles had the support from Tengku Hussein and Temenggong to allow to build settlement in southern part of Singapore. In the end, Raffles managed to make peace between Dutch and British who were fighting for Singapore but in exchange of bencoolen. It shows how wise of Raffles and how he handle of problems which occur in the process for wanting to make a settlement in Singapore.

Yes, Raffles only been in Singapore for about three times but you have to consider this too, the question is "Who really 'founded Singapore?" Not "Who really helped Singapore in the process of the development?"

Farquhar might have done alot for Singapore and helped in the process of Singapore's development but he took the lead after Raffles left Singapore because he was appointed for the lieutenant-Governor. Raffles started Singapore and build the foundation of Singapore and Farquhar continue of developing Singapore for a better sucess.

Farquhar cannot be the founder of Singapore since it was clearly Raffles who started Singapore and Farquhar was just continue in Singapore development.

So i strongly agree that Raffles was the founder of Singapore. Farquhar derserves a good credit too for the great development process but it doesnt fit in for the question given. Well, John Crawfurd doesnt derserve as much credit as Farquhar in my opinon since all he did was just sign the treaty that made Singapore a British colony. John Crawfurd cannot be the founder of Singapore.

Enjoy my debate!
~Tmk~