Talk:History of Singapore

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the History of Singapore article.
Please sign and date your posts using four tildes (~~~~). New discussion topics go at the bottom of the page; click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Frequently asked questions. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.	Talk page guidelines Be polite Assume good faith No personal attacks Don't bite the newcomers!

This article is a former featured article candidate. Please view its sub-page to see why the nomination failed. For older candidates, please check the archive.

History of Singapore has had a peer review by Wikipedia editors which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.

History of Singapore has been listed as a good article under the good-article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can delist it, or ask for a review.

To-do list for History of Singapore:

edit · history · watch · refresh

Structure Create subpages and organise material Create template, organised items in chronological order Create articles for red-links Find more pictures for article Wikify: Link to more concepts created over the past year since the bulk of the article was expanded Content Mention philanthropists and various other leaders, Tan Kah Kee, Tan Tock Seng etc.. Expand articles on them. More on social and cultural history, to balance the political history Add history related to minorities, women, immigration, foreign workers, etc. Flip-side analyses, ie. dissent against policies Some correlation with demographics: eugenics issues such as "stop at two" and economic incentives for sterilisation of uneducated women Follow-up Add inline citations using <ref> Proof-read Update links between subpages Check for accuracy and ensure consistency between articles Standardise: date format, British English Check that images are properly license-tagged Explain wordings or abbreviations that may be unfamilar to general readers Submit for peer review

Contents 1 Factual error on Malaysia's bumiputra policy? 2 Copyright of the article 3 Water no longer a significant advantage? 4 Battle of Singapore 5 Post-Independence 6 on the capitalization of "Japanese occupation of Singapore" 7 Yang di-Pertuan Agong 8 Expansion 9 linkage and context to other articles 10 Section on "1965–present" 11 Organisation of subpages (proposal and discussion) 12 Yang di-Pertuan Negara 13 Independence of Singapore 14 Pu Luo Chung 15 Next steps 16 1613 or 1617

[edit] Factual error on Malaysia's bumiputra policy?

From my knowledge, Malaysia only embarked formally on the bumiputra policy in 1969 after Singapore left the Federation. If that's the case, we have to work on the editing the part about Singapore leaving the federation cause of the bumiputra policy. Would someone familar with Malaysian history care to comment on this? - zoek 04:23, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

According to Article 153 of the Constitution of Malaysia, the status of bumiputra was already recognised by 1963. It may be more appropriate to use article 153 to link to racial policy at that time, though. -- Natalinasmpf 03:06, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Copyright of the article

It seems that the original form of this page was copied from http://www.sg/flavour/history.asp, which is (C) Ministry of Information, Communications and the Arts in Singapore. This is rather unpleasant, considering the amount of work that's gone into it. We could try to get the relevant permissions from the copyright holder, or delete the article. How now? -- CYD

Yes, still too much elements of copying from the Singapore government article. Probably should be taken to Wikipedia:Copyright problems, yes? Alex.tan 04:18, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Is someone up to trying to rewrite the page without the copyrighted material? I'd dislike having to delete the whole thing, as many people have worked on it, but if no one is willing to try to salvage some of the content making sure not to include the copyright violations, that's what we'll have to do. Someone care to make a start at History of Singapore/Temp using appropriate stuff from the page history while that's still here? -- Infrogmation 16:10, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I made an attempt at a stub. It will need a lot of expansion. ffirehorse 02:36, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Yes, I think editing the article is a better option because the info taken from the MICA website is actually very general and can be found in most school history textbooks. So if we work on it and make it different from the original one, copyright wouldn't become an issue. - zoek 04:23, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Just wanted to tell you this issue is non-existent. All the copyright problems have been removed. -- Natalinasmpf 11:56, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Water no longer a significant advantage?

I feel that water is still a signifcant advantage for passing ships that make it a port of call. All ships stop at port of calls, well, because they can replenish supplies, especially water, since I do not suppose most ships have mass scale desalination machinery, and ships with months of water supply - still need to restock.

So I'm just probably nitpicking, but I feel it *is* a significant advantage. If hotels in a desert built up around an oasis, forming some major trade city, I would still say, the oasis is its main reason for its existence. Many cities grew up like that in Arabia, only to fall when the oasis ran dry (or at least I read in Reader's Digest)...in the sense, Singapore's port is somewhat like that, because a fresh water and a deep harbour is sort of like that. Sure you may have industries, tourism, and hospitalities, but water remains a prime importance.

I propose to uh, reform the statement in the history section declaring that water is no longer a significant advantage: rather, a remark such as the relevance of today in contrast ie. metal-based repairs instead of wood, [i]in addition[i] to water, resources like oil replenishing, and so on. - Natalinasmpf 14:22, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Battle of Singapore

How detailed should this article be, especially on details such as the Japanese used bicycles - and elaborating on why they were advantages...? Are details like these significant to the article? Or the Thai bases which they launched the invasion from? Also, would my perception of the the speed of light tanks (is it correct to note that the Japanese using heavy tanks instead would have no additional advantage because the British anti-tank resistance was minimal?) and infantry on bicycles to produce an offensive similar to the German tactic of blitzkrieg be correct?

A lot of people had taken out these details which had been originally included in their copyedits, so I just want to bring it up now. Natalinasmpf 15:28, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Post-Independence

The amount of information on this section is quite simply - lopsided. It is lacking! I am running out of time at the moment, but a few things to consider is economic development of Jurong, the attraction of foreign investment, education and the English as a first language policy, and how the HDB would be set up.

Armed Forces could be another issue. Natalinasmpf 02:05, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] on the capitalization of "Japanese occupation of Singapore"

The words "Japanese" and "Singapore" should obviously be capitalized as they are proper nouns. "Occupation", however, is not a proper noun and should not be capitalized. See Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#Capital_letters and Wikipedia:Naming conventions (capitalization). Alex.tan 01:32, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

FWIW, most textbooks in Singapore captitalize it as "Japanese Occupation", treating it as a proper noun. -- CYD

IIRC, the textbooks I used some ... 15 years ago ... used "Japanese Occupation" in the titles and subtitles but not in the text itself. It may have changed by now but anyway, I think it was an issue for emphasis in the old books as in Capitalization#Headings_and_publication_titles. Besides, the Singapore government does not capitalize the "o" in [1]. Alex.tan 04:28, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Yang di-Pertuan Agong

I've removed this sentence:

The Malaysian constitution stated that Malaysia was a constitutional monarchy and that the Yang di-Pertuan Agong (king, head of state) could only be a Malay.

While I appreciate that the article is trying to highlight the controversial nature of the Bumiputra policy, this point is irrelevant. Is Britain racist because the King or Queen can only be Caucasian? The whole point of a monarchy is that the position of head of state can only be from that family, whatever race it is. Quiensabe 20 Jun 2005 18:02 UTC

Well no....if you do look, there's nothing about having to be Caucasian (it's not even the right word), since you see all these countless usurpations and revolutions throughout England's history. -- Natalinasmpf 11:57, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

The Yang di-Pertuan Agong is elected from the 9 Malayan monarchs to serve as 'King of Malaysia' for a 5 year term.The current Yang di-Pertuan Agong is the Raja of Perlis, whose state is located in northern Malaya up near the border with Thailand.The name 'Malaya' is applied to the peninsular states, & 'Malaysia' is applied to both the peninsular states & the States of Sabah & Sarawak. - (Aidan Work 01:51, 22 November 2005 (UTC))

[edit] Expansion

I think we should have articles such as Post war Singapore and such, any comments. Terenceong1992 15:15, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] linkage and context to other articles

During this time of its main expansion, Wikipedia has since created a great number of articles related to Singapore's history, or history in the Pacific, or Malaysia, (Article 153 of the Constitution of Malaysia being a good example). We should be in the lookout for these and include them in the article, with context, (ie. avoid redundancy while explaining conceptual links clearly)....oh, Battle of Malaya needs to be cleaned up for NPOV checks (also one of the major tactical reasons for the Allied loss is disorganisation, ie. Allied units got picked off while Japanese concentrated their forces, this isn't emphasised in the article enough), and for example Battle of Prachuab Khirikhan gives context why the Thai allowed the Japanese to use their territory against Malaya and Singapore. Oh, bicycle infantry. I'm sure this will all be familiar to many of you in context ultimately, so improving those articles will ultimately improve this one and make it a good FAC article. Also, there are bound to be flow problems, racial tensions need to be elaborated further (good quotes in both bumiputra and that of Article 153, from Lee Kuan Yew!). Quite a workload, but I can't deal with all of these myself, so help me! -- Natalinasmpf 03:32, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Section on "1965–present"

Currently the organisation section "Republic of Singapore (1965–present)" is organised into

• Problems after independence
• Resolution
• Success and criticism

The words of the headings have some pov issues. May I suggest to reorganise it in chronological order instead. There are two ways:

• Organise according to decades
  • 1965 - 1970
  • The 1970s
  • The 1980s
  • The 1990s
  • 2000 - present
• Or, organise according to administration
  • Lee Kuan Yew administration (1965-1990)
  • Goh Chok Tong administration (1990-2004)
  • Lee Hsien Loong administration (2004-present)

I believe either of these will be clearer for readers and make it easier for editors to add or expand the content. Appreciate any comment or better suggestion? Thanks.--Vsion 03:54, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

I prefer organising it in choronological order, easier format. Besides, we really need an expansion on the total article, I believe the article can be better, everything can be found in school textbooks. This has the potential to become a featured article, provided if work is spent on this. --Terence Ong _{(Chat | Contribs)} 12:26, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

I lost my history textbook, probably with the karung guni, :P. But first, we need a template; anyone interested in designing one? --Vsion 14:29, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm no good in designing template, only copy and paste and modify it. :D I don't want to make things go haywire. ;) --Terence Ong _{(Chat | Contribs)} 15:11, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes I agree there are some POV issues. In fact, when a rather large bulk of this is propaganda I was writing in my own words from the textbooks. :p Not too bad, but this article has become rather outdated with all the new articles we are having. We of course want to keep summary style, but mentioning elections, key political events and passing of acts, (of course we have those two red {{main}} links to create to explain the initial foundations of Singapore's structure. I realise it was along the lines of "this is what this government agency did, what that one did" and they were successful but of course the article currently seems to reflect predominantly the textbook point of view (mostly my fault, haha).

Some other things: I just recalled there were initiatives among other things like "stop at two", then a reversal of policy into "have three or more" needs to be mentioned. It's even mentioned in the French article on the main Singapore page (some of them called it eugenics especially with the "get sterilised if you're uneducated" scheme). Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (Be eudaimonic!) 05:53, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, that should be mentioned. "Stop at two" was a big topic at that time, I realised we also need to create like 1970s in Singapore giving a brief history of that decade. Well, what the content in this page is no more than "Understanding Our Past". This is a huge task, takes plenty of time to write a great article. Maybe we can look at Lee Kuan Yew's memoirs or other history books in National libraries. Maybe the Lee Kong Chian Reference Library is a place to do good research. Just a suggestion. I'm considering asking my teacher for help... Last but not least, I found a good website by the NHB to improve the World War II section. --Terence Ong _{(Chat | Contribs)} 13:42, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it is an interesting topic, this "Stop at two" campaign, etc., and ridden with controversies too, we might open a can of baby worms here :P. While this should be mentioned in History, it also deserved a separate article (potential DYK candidate). We may want to consider combining population growth control policies with immigration policies, under an umbrella article named Population policies in Singapore or something like that, which will include other topics such as Baby Bonus, SDU, aging population, etc. And, for nostalgia :), it would be wonderful if we can find some images of those old "stop at two" campaign posters together with those new ones. --Vsion 06:45, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

There are "new ones"? Now that I recall, it was quite an old policy, no? I only remember fleeting glances of it - I *think* we covered some of it in primary school but not much, and I remember seeing a GEP worksheet on demographics two years back (I am jealous of their syllabus)...what disturbs me is that I could have almost been totally ignorant of it, given that I didn't return to Singapore till 2001, and somehow, I can't remember, I was informed of it in that same year.

I actually keep getting images of my grandmother's flat lift landing at Telok Blangah while thinking about it - I wonder if it's a sign? My grandparents have a bunch of old material stacked up in their storeroom, since they have books dating back to 1982, I'm not surprised if they have some propaganda lurking about...Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (Be eudaimonic!) 07:40, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

For the "new ones", I was refering to the "three or more" campaign to illustrate the evolution of the population policies. For the "Stop At Two", there were at least several posters designs; with a classic one showing two sisters, they always had girls instead of boys on these posters. It was a major campaign in 1970s and 80s, with posters all over HDB, lifts, schools, clinics, etc. --Vsion 19:04, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Organisation of subpages (proposal and discussion)

The article is about reaching the stage where more subpages are needed to handle the amount of material. The content in some sections, especially the pre-1965 history, are fairly stable and can be spin-off to sub-pages, and to be replaced here by smaller (3-4 paragraph) sections. By moving less significant material to sub-pages while keeping the more important content here, it should improve the readability of the article.

Here is a suggestion of the list of subpages to be created, some already exist.

1. Early history of Singapore (Before 1819)
2. Founding of modern Singapore ((1819–1826)
3. Singapore in the Straits Settlements (1826–1942)
4. Battle of Singapore (1942)
5. Japanese Occupation of Singapore (1942-1945)
6. Singapore during post-war period (1945-1955)
7. Singapore Self-government (1955-1963)
8. Singapore in Malaysia (1963-1965)
9. Independence of Singapore (1965)
10. History of the Republic of Singapore (1965-present)

Please comment on the list and suggest better organisation or wordings of the subpages' titles. --Vsion 03:19, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, this should how the History article should be like, having sub-pages which is a standard for FA. That means, we must expand the article more than the content of the History textbook. :D --Terence Ong _{(Chat | Contribs)} 13:10, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

::For #4, is "Colonial Singapore" (1867–1941) the suitable name? Any help for a better name? --Vsion 06:46, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

The subpages and structure are mostly done. Need further proofreading and of course add inline citations, which is a painstaking task. Those subpages can now be expanded more easily, especially the History of the Republic of Singapore, by adding 2nd or 3rd levels sections. --Vsion 06:46, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Yang di-Pertuan Negara

How was the Yang di-Pertuan Negara elected or selected? Was he the Queen's representative like a governor before 1963, when Singapore joined Malaysia? — Instantnood 22:30, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

hmm... smell something fishy. It always starts with innocent-looking questions, like this Vsion 00:08, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

lol! It can be fun tracing it all back to the root thou!--Huaiwei 12:39, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

How was the Yang di-Pertuan Negara elected or selected? If he's not a governor with a different title, then the position was rather unique among all British crown colonies by then. — Instantnood 17:18, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Did you bother reading Yang di-Pertuan Negara? And why is this question popping up in this talkpage instead of in Yang di-Pertuan Negara itself?--Huaiwei 18:25, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

I've read that article and it does not address the questions I've raised. It's part of the history of decolonisation of Singapore and that's why I raised the questions here. — Instantnood 18:45, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

So why do you not reseach on the topic and add in the information, if that was your only intention to ask the question? This article is about a title, so in what way is it a "part of the history of decolonisation of Singapore" so much so that it can only be discussed here? If that is the case, I suppose we can all consolidate every discussion into one giant talkpage since everything is somehow related to something else ultimately?--Huaiwei 13:43, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

" So why do you not reseach on the topic " - How can you reach such a conclusion? — Instantnood 06:12, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

It is not a conclusion. It is a question waiting to be answered...and still unanswered (and probably will never be answered given this track record).--Huaiwei 10:27, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

You asserted I did not research on the topic, and you ask me why I did not. I contested your assertion, which you have subsequently denied. — Instantnood 18:41, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

So you did do research? By reading Yang di-Pertuan Negara in wikipedia? Show us what research you did, and what conclusions you found, before claiming you did any proper research. So what "assertion" did I "subsequently deny"? It is quite obvious that I consistently think you failed to do research, so try harder next time in your attempts to slander my name. ;)--Huaiwei 03:56, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

" Show us what research you did, and what conclusions you found " - Am I required to show user:Huaiwei I've done some research before I ask a question? You just " consistently think " I did not, in other words you're accusing me while presenting no evidence to support the accusation. — Instantnood 16:16, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Independence of Singapore

Do we still need a separate article on this or is this fulfilled by History of the Republic of Singapore? Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (Be eudaimonic!) 10:48, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Actually I think this can go in self-governance of Singapore if we wanted to extend the concept. Full internal self-governance was granted in 1959, but technically full self-governance, both internal and external came about only in 1965. Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (Be eudaimonic!) 10:51, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

I was thinking about an article focusing in details the events directly leading to the Independence or in the aftermath, such as the pre-separation negotiation, Goh Keng Swee's trip to Kuala Lumpur, separation agreement, expulsion bill in the Malaysian Parliament, Declaration of Independence, and perhaps British's response. However, there isn't enough material on these yet, so I guess we can expand the content at Singapore in Malaysia#Separation or Self-governance of Singapore#Campaign for Malaysia first and later decide if this new article is necessary. --Vsion 16:34, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pu Luo Chung

I'm being nitpicky on this one, but why are we using the Wade-Giles spelling rather than the pinyin (Pu Luo Zhong)? I suppose it might not really matter.... Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (Be eudaimonic!) 03:25, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Haven't notice that before. A possible reason is that the English references use Pu Luo Chung. Usage in English defies any standardisation, I guess. --Vsion 02:27, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Next steps

This article is very good however it can still be improved further. Might I suggest another peer review? Tarret 23:35, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the encouragement. There are also some feedback from the failed FAC, we need to work on the lead section and resolve some issues with the pictures. The reviews are not too bad, will certainly try again soon. ;-) --Vsion 03:30, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

I've fix all the items from the "FAC review". Think it's time for another PR. --Vsion 08:30, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 1613 or 1617

The article at Singapore says 1617 for the Portugese destruction of Singapore, this article says 1613. Which is correct? John Riemann Soong 00:53, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Should be 1613 according to [2] and some other online sources. Thanks. --Vsion 06:07, 19 August 2006 (UTC)