Jermaine Wong (2015) History Notes: Unit 1 • • • People Circumstances Ideas Curriculum Updates Unit 1: Japanese occupation and impact on singapore (1942-1945) Unit 2: Conceiving the nation (1945-1955); malaya and singapore Unit 3: Contest of ideas (1955-1963); constitutional developments in malaya, singapore and formation of malaysia Unit 4: The realization of a nation (1963-1965); merger and separation Unit 1 TA – T1W9 20% Enduring Understanding: Change is not always equal to progress Concepts: Government, Discrimination, Self-Determination Essential Questions: - When do governments change? - How do discriminatory policies lead to the rise of political consciousness? - Should governments observe certain rules in running a country? - Did the war affect the people’s mindsets and feelings towards the British and Singapore? - Can tragedy spurn a sense of belonging? Unit 2 Term 1; Week 8-9, Term 2; Week 1-2 Enduring Understandings: Change generates more change Concepts: Nation, Nationalism, Decolonisation (breaking apart of former colonies), Ideology Essential Questions: - Are nations constructed or inherently existent? - Can different ideologies coexist in a country? 1946: Malayan Union 1947: Year of strikes 1945-1955: Turbulent years 1955: Constitution of Singapore Note: Rendel headed a commission in 1953 to recommend further changes in the constitutional system that helped created the constitution of Singapore under the Singapore Colony Order in 1955. Jermaine Wong (2015) Unit 3 Term 2; Week 3-10 TA – T2W7 20% Enduring Understanding: Change occurs amidst continuities Concepts: Nation, Sovereignty, Democracy, Ideology Essential Questions: - Why are there competing visions about how a country should be governed? - How should the people exercise their say in how a country should be governed? - Is it possible to achieve political aims without violence? Political Figures: - David Marshall - Lim Chin Siong - Lee Kuan Yew + Tunku Abdul Rahman Unit 4 Term 3; Week 1-10 PT – T3W7 Enduring Understanding: Systems interact Concepts: Nation, Ethnicity, Communalism, Multiculturalism Essential Questions: - How should the people exercise their say in how a country should be governed? - Why do some leaders choose to politicize issues such as race and religion? - At what point do differences between leaders become irreconcilable? - What are the circumstances necessary for a city-state to become a nation? Jermaine Wong (2015) UNIT 1 Rise of Japan - Japanese regarded emperor as a god - Closed Japan’s door to foreigners for 200 years - In 1853, when American warships arrived, Japan signed a treaty with the Americans (American warships were much more powerful than Japan’s) - Japan learnt many things from the west and became more modern - In 1894, Japan attacked China (Sino-Jap war), losing them control of Taiwan and Korea → Most powerful Asian nation - In 1905, after defeating russia (Russo-Jap war), Japan gained confidence as they had defeated a western power Resources: - Gain territory’s resources → Sold for profit / Used for national interests Japanese Traits - Aggressive - Confident in their abilities - Resourcefulness - Adaptability - Unity - Loyalty (e.g. kamikaze pilots) - Determination British Traits - Outdated technology - Complacent Who overestimated british ability to defend singapore? - Chiefs in Singapore - War office in London - Churchill Japanese Invasion of Singapore and Malaya - Reasons for SEA: Oil in SEA - Britain’s Weaknesses - Government, war generals (General Bond did not continue what General Dobbie started), forces Axis: Germany, Italy, Japan Allied: Britain, France, USA, Russia (after hitler) Why did Singapore fall so quickly? - Lack of spirit the british troops had for singapore Jermaine Wong (2015) Battle of Bukit Chandu (12-14 feb) - Malay Regiment started in 1933 as an experiment group based in Penang and led by British officers - Moved down to Singapore in 1942 - Adnan Saidi: Stepped up in command after superior fled What could we see from this video? - Locals had stronger fighting spirit - British did not think that locals had the intelligence and capacity to lead and govern themselves - Local: Malay Regiment, MPAJA (Chinese), Force 136 (Lim Bo Seng), Elizabeth Choy Should governments observe certain rules in running a country? - What rules are necessary? - Why those rules? Why are they significant? When do governments change? - What were the circumstances that would have brought about this change? - Is change always equal to progress? Governments - Responsible for the welfare of the people → Gain support - Open to the viewpoints of the people → Gain support - Non-discriminating attitude - Fair to the people → Gain support - Set rules that honor basic human rights Fairness vs. Equality - Give some more to make some the same standard as everyone = Everyone at the same standard → Fairness (communism) - Give the same to everyone, so the gap still remains → Equality - Affirmative Action: Action favouring those who tend to suffer from discrimination - Many different solutions to many different problems Did the government do what they should? - Government was not fair to British - Fair to People: Education policies, Employment opportunities What would be the indications if the government exercised this action? - Hatred after war - Make the other troops stronger World War II Deaths - Sook Ching massacre - Treatment of prisoners-of-war - Military attacks - Starvation Jermaine Wong (2015) How did the mindset of the people shift after the war? Changi Murals - In 1963, Stanley Warren was invited back to Singapore to restore the murals he had painted as a prisoner-of-war in Changi Prison during World War II - Men in the film were all very skinny - Misery → Scene of painting → Stanley returning to Changi Prison World World II was a period of - Fear and torture - Nipponisation - Hunger - Resourcefulness - Bravery 1st February - In Skudai, Johore, Yamashita gave out the battle orders to his commanders - Drank wine and changed into clean clothes → Japanese customs before going on a suicide mission - Japanese were given 70 days to conquer singapore but they only took 14 → What does that tell us about the British and the Japanese? Changi Jail Walk - What? - British were ordered to walk from the Padang to Changi - Dispel white man’s superiority → Reinforce Japan’s superiority to the British in the locals - ‘Warning’ to the locals to not go against the Japanese - Garner support from the locals → British were no longer as powerful as they used to be Japanese Treatment of the Prisoners-of-War - Claim: Cruel treatment - Evidence: They were very thin and lacked proper clothing How does the evidence link to the claim (cause and effect)? - Neglected the needs of the prisoners-of-war → Cruel Historical Justification L5 (9-10 m) - Inference + Source evidence Historical knowledge Critical interpretation of source linked to big context and concepts L4 (7-8 m) - Inference + Source evidence Historical knowledge L3 (5-6 m) - Inference + Source evidence Jermaine Wong (2015) More asian or more Japanese? - Nipponisation - Japanese values Based on the activities highlighted in the chart, what did the Japanese hope to achieve in the locals? Support your answer with details from the source. [5] Team’s Response: Based on the activities in the chart, the Japanese hoped to influence the locals into supporting the Japanese. The chart shows that the Japanese made the locals “learn the Japanese language in place of English” and thus hoped to achieve a sense of loyalty towards Japan in the locals as they would then understand the language spoken by the Japanese and have a stronger sense of belonging towards Japan. Through this, the Japanese were able to control what was taught in the schools and used that as tools of propaganda to influence the younger generation. The Japanese wanted people to have a sense of loyalty towards the Japanese because they knew how to speak the language, supported by Japanese propaganda (that were also anti-British). They also made the students “take part in activities” such as “singing the Japanese national anthem” to inculcate Asian values in the locals. The Japanese wanted to create a “Asia for Asians” and by making the locals learn English and take part in activities that inculcate Japanese values in the values and through that, the Japanese hoped that they would lean toward the Asian Forces and inculcate a sense of belonging to Asia. Through this, they wanted the locals to support the Japanese by getting rid of the idea of white man’s superiority. By giving the students good schooling and even having activities to inculcate values in the locals, the Japanese wanted the locals to feel that the Japanese were treating them better than the British since the British only gave money to schools that were teaching English. On the other hand, as the Japanese organised activities that cultivated Asian culture, many locals would have a stronger sense of belonging towards Asia. Hence, the locals would want to support the Japanese instead. In conclusion, the Japanese wanted to promote Japanese propaganda and garner the support of Singapore’s people, proving that Asians and Europeans were on equal footing. PPA1 - 1st March (Tue) 50 min 20 marks 20% Two inference questions (5m each) One justification question (10m) Jermaine Wong (2015) Clarity → Claim Relevance → Evidence Accuracy → Explanation Precision → Conclusion Depth → Overall Underlying Reason + Context (historical knowledge corresponds with source evidence) + Historical knowledge Source Analysis + Source evidence What is discrimination? - Different evantiation - High quality vs. low quality - Involves people - Majority has power over minority Treating people with prejudice because of certain traits that that group may have Sook Ching [massacre of 20,000 to 60,000] - Race (Chinese) - Gender (males) - Occupation (literate) - Age (18-50 year olds) Japanese Government – Divide and Rule People Circumstances Ideas Europeans Rrisoners-of-war (persecution) Japanese were unfair → Anger towards Japanese Eurasians Interned with POWs (persecution) → Assumed to be British supporters Japanese were unfair Malays Allowed to serve in the government → Win local support, Less harsh Japanese supported them by giving them opportunities the British didn’t give Indians Agreed to fight against british for independence in india → Win local support, Less harsh Witnessed Japanese brutality – Not as good as they claimed Chinese Sook Ching → Discrimination Japanese were unfair → Anger towards japanese Jermaine Wong (2015) Japanese propaganda - “Greater asia co-prosperity sphere” - “Asia for the asians” Resentment → Rebellion to overthrow the government - Discriminatory policies [practised by the government] can lead to the rise of political consciousness [in the people] A government that uses force and discrimination as means to enforce its rule can cause resentment and a desire for self-determination For example, racial minorities who have been discriminated against join ISIS as their impression of the government is not good, so they join ISIS to find a better government “When the Japanese attacked, some of us were anti-British and pro-Japanese; In three years, we were all anti-Japanese” - At the start of the Japanese occupation, some locals viewed the Japanese as liberators who could free them from British rule - Locals realized that the discrimination shown by the British was mild compared to that of the Japanese - Country prospered under British and welfare needs of the people were met whereas the Japanese did not meet the welfare needs of the people and ruled the people with fear (hardship – textbook pg 40) The Japanese Occupation was a Time of - Hardship - Fear - Unity (brought the races together) - Responsibility - Creativity - Developing political consciousness Black Market - Illegal (black) - If caught selling things → Persecuted - Scarcity of food - Increased demand - The Japanese started rationing as the war had disrupted trade and the available resources were channelled to the Japanese war efforts - Change can be positive or negative Jermaine Wong (2015) Historical Inference L1 (1m) - No inference Lifted evidence L2 (2-3m) - Imprecise inference No source evidence L3 (4-5m) - Precise inference Source evidence (purposeful in the context - explain in relation to question to get 5m) Explanation - Claim must not have any source evidence → it must be in your own words Historical Justification - L1-L3: Historical inference markbands - L4-L5: Other historical knowledge → This claim is justified because it can be corroborated with other historical evidence. For example… - Organization - Inference + source evidence paragraph - Historical knowledge paragraph - Link to big concepts paragraph – corroborate source evidence and historical knowledge (what is the key reason why this claim is justified? - concepts of change, discrimination, leaders, etc.) → In conclusion, the claim that ___ is justified because ____ (actions - source evidence + historical knowledge) to ____ (big concept) in order to… Big Concepts - Change is not always equal to progress - Change can be positive or negative - Discriminatory policies [practised by the government] can lead to the rise of political consciousness [in the people] - A government that uses force and discrimination as means to enforce its rule can cause resentment and a desire for self-determination Jermaine Wong (31) 210 History: Unit 2 and 3 History Unit 2 Notes Conceiving the Nation (1945-1955) - BMA (British Military Administration) - Riots, Strikes - Maria Hertogh Riots, Hock Lee Bus Riots - 1947: Year of Strikes - Racial Tension - Chinese: Communist ideology - Maria Hertogh Riots - Political Consciousness - Distrust of the British - Return of British good or bad - Self-determination - Road to Democracy - 1948: First general election [Legislative Council] - 1955: Second general election [Chief Minister David Marshall] - Formation of political parties (e.g. Labour Front) Social Issues - Healthcare - Food and Water - Housing - Employment - Crime Economic Issues - Unemployment - Need for industries to provide jobs - Unemployment → No income → No money for housing, food, healthcare, etc. → Standard of living decreases → Resort to crime [social] - Little foreign investment - Social instability → Politically weak government → Few foreign investors attracted → Less economic resources → Economy cannot grow Political Issues - No Balance in Government - Government focuses too much on one area → Issues in other areas neglected → Other areas’ issues worsen and left unsolved - E.g. During the occupation, the Japanese government focused on political issues [attaining local respect and obedience], but neglected the welfare of the people (social), which in turn, resulted in economic stagnation (economic) Jermaine Wong (31) 210 History: Unit 2 and 3 Political, Economic and Social Issues - Interconnected: Change in one area affects the other areas - Draw links from the main point that lead to another point in a different area Decolonization - Reverse colonization - Withdrawal of colonial power → Political independence - Not always peaceful [clashes between locals and colonial power] - After the war (1945-1960), 36 states in Asia and Africa achieved either semi-independence (autonomy) or outright independence - Singapore: Affected by other states gaining independence → Locals wanted independence Why Decolonization? Internal Factors - Locals’ Mindsets - Locals did not trust the British to govern Singapore well after their surrender of Singapore to the Japanese - Riots and Strikes (e.g. year of strikes, Maria Hertogh riots): Expressions of anti-British sentiments amongst the locals - Lack of Finances - After the war, very little money was left as much of it had been spent by the British to fight Germany and Japan: Less money to sustain colonies External Factors - Trend of Independence - As many countries in the region were gaining independence after the war, the locals were affected by this trend and started thinking about independence from the British as well Why Leave Behind a System? - Communism: British were afraid Singapore would fall into communist hands → Singapore no longer an ally - Responsibility: British felt it was ethical to leave Singapore with a system for self-governance Traits of a Nation - Common national identity - Shared history, culture, values - Choice of the people Could Singapore be considered a nation? (1945-1955) Yes No - Multi-racial Shared experiences (WW2) Political consciousness - Racial riots (internal strife) Focused on rebuilding life after war Few people actually had the desire to make change + Few could vote at GE Jermaine Wong (31) 210 History: Unit 2 and 3 Could Singapore be considered a nation? - Singapore was not yet a nation from 1945-1955, but she was on her road to nationhood Political Milestones 1945 - BMA returned to Malaya and Singapore 1946 - - Malayan Union: FMS (Malacca), UFMS (Penang) - All the people would have equal rights and citizenship → Malays felt superior to Indian and Chinese immigrants and wanted more rights - Loss of the sultan’s power UMNO (United Malays National Organization) - Rallied Malays who objected to the British government together Singapore is a separate crown colony - Federation of Malaya Malayan Emergency Singapore’s First Elections - 1948 Alliance Government - UMNO (United Malays National Organization) - MIC (Malayan Indian Congress) - MCA (Malayan Chinese Association) Tragedy → Sense of Belonging - Camaraderie, Bond (e.g. many of their loved ones died here, so they stay here to continue tending to their graves, etc.) - Before war: No sense of belonging → War: Tragedy → After war: Sense of belonging → Worried about future of Singapore Post-War Issues - Increased food prices, rents, petrol, etc. - More strikes - People wanted more rights - Workers on strike → Less productivity → Less profit → Less economic growth + Less stability → No money to help the people Democracy vs. Communism Democracy Communism Political People’s Voice State-Voice Economic Capitalist System - Personal wealth Different classes (upper, middle, lower) State-Owned/Managed - Businesses - Wealth Classless Society Jermaine Wong (31) 210 History: Unit 2 and 3 Communism - Wealth: Upper classes lose their wealth (e.g. house), persecuted → Upper classes do not want to cooperate → Violent clashes - Violent Clashes (e.g. Malayan Emergency: Kidnapping, killing to threaten the government to let communists take over) Aspirations of People - Elections - One political party, three independent candidates - Strikes and Riots - Malays: Maria Hertogh Riots (1950) - Chinese: NS Riots (1954) - Hock Lee Bus Riots (1955) History Unit 3 Notes Generalization - Change occurs amidst continuities Enduring Understandings - The people of a country should have a say in how a society should be governed - There may be competing visions about how a country should be governed - There may be many possible paths for a country to obtain its sovereignty Ideology - Set of values, beliefs, and opinions [systems] Contest of Ideas (1955-1963) - Formation of nation beyond government’s control - Decolonization Movements - “Winds of change” - Left vs. Right Wing Left vs. Right Wing - Left - Radicals, Liberals - Less state control (e.g. anarchism, communism, liberalism) - Right - Conservatives - More state control (e.g. monarchism, nazism, fascism) - Democracy - Middle of the spectrum - Moderate Jermaine Wong (31) 210 History: Unit 2 and 3 Communism - Bourgeois: Capitalist, Upper middle class - Proletariat: Lower / Middle Class SPP - Conservatism LF, PAP - Socialism People’s Action Party - English and Chinese-educated - Masses were Chinese-educated → PAP (English-educated) allies with Communist party (Chinese-educated) → Gain more support from the masses - Neither could survive alone: PAP needed Chinese-educated to appeal to the masses; Communists used PAP as a front to practise communism without getting caught by British How People Exercise their Say in Governance - Violence - Riots - Strikes - Non-Violence - Negotiations - Elections Government - Cares for the People - Capability of the Party - Experience - Qualifications - Vision the Party has - Suits people’s needs - Clear - Help country progress - Values → Policies Jermaine Wong (31) 210 History: Unit 2 and 3 Limited Self-Government (1955) - Local government - Lack capability to govern country - Social aspects - Had to go through British when implementing policies - British government - Do not trust locals to be in charge of external affairs - External and internal security - Finance → Controlled resources Party Cares for People Capability Vision Singapore Progressive Party Free housing, etc. No rise in income tax Tertiary education Where does the money come from? Experience from government in 1948 Free housing, etc. No rise income tax Democratic Party Free trade Housing People’s Action Party Free education (children → parent) Maternity plans (women) No emergency regulations (chinese community) Alliance Party Housing development Grants for schools Labor Front Independence Welfare state (housing, low interests, hospitals) No emergency regulations Insurance if unemployed Min. wage = Fair Free trade [not what people wanted] Unrealistic vision → British would not agree to immediate independence with unprepared and inexperienced local leaders Immediate independence → Unrealistic vision Not specific in manifesto → No clear vision More realistic, accomplishable than other parties’ goals + Understand the needs of the people post-war Immediate self-governance → Compelling vision for the people [rise in political awareness, unhappiness with British] History PPA2 - 4 May (Wed) - 50 min; 15m (20%) - Structured Essay Question: Provision and Justification of Stand + Provision of Opposing View - Unit 3: 1955 Elections (pg. 72-90) - Challenges faced by David Marshall government (April 1955 - June 1956) Jermaine Wong (31) 210 History: Unit 2 and 3 Skills Accessed - Construction of explanations to account for cause and effect + historical context - Demonstration of historical understanding based on source - NOT just historical knowledge - E.g. Sook Ching: Random from Source vs. Discriminatory from Knowledge → Claim based on SOURCE evidence, NOT historical knowledge - Use of historical knowledge as evidence → Purposeful selection based on question - Give two reasons to explain if the statement is valid / invalid Need to Know - Constitutional development (1955-59) and elections which led to eventual self-government - David Marshall, Lim Yew Hock - Limitations of limited self-government - Student activism (1954-59): Advocacy for a better age - Reasons for politicization of Chinese Middle School students - Political contests, PAP as a rising force (1954-59) - PAP radical left, manifesto - Collapse of the Labour Front - 1955 Singapore General Elections FA1 - “The Labour Front won the 1955 Elections because it provided a compelling vision for the people of Singapore.” Taking into consideration the historical context, provide one reason why this statement is valid or invalid. - TB pg. 72-73 - tinyurl.com/davidmarshallnas - Diary of a Nation video Labour Front - Aim: Protect workers’ interests - Origin: Founded by former members of Singapore Labour Party (SLP), Lim Yew Hock, and Francis Thomas as they found that SLP lacked a clear political aim - Multi-racial, and included low-income and English-educated members of trade unions; Anti-communist - Vision: Immediate self-governance → LF has the opportunity to improve workers’ rights and working conditions - How to Achieve: Wanted to work with the British to attain self-government People’s Action Party (PAP) - Origin: Founded based on political beliefs and aspirations of founding members such as Lee Kuan Yew and Toh Chin Chye [participation in Malayan Forum in Britain shaped these beliefs] - Against British colonial rule in Singapore - Vision: Immediate independence Jermaine Wong (31) 210 History: Unit 2 and 3 How to Achieve: Constitutional Changes → PAP has the opportunity to influence how Singapore is governed; Support from Masses → Workers, Trade Unions, Students in Chinese-medium Schools; Unite Singapore with Malaya Chinese Middle School Students - Chinese-medium schools offered secondary and pre-university education with little support from the British - These students had limited opportunity to pursue university education in Singapore → Had to go to China to study → British wanted to stop spread of communist ideals → British banned those who visited China to return to Singapore → Students could not go to China to study unless they chose not to return to Singapore → Students could not pursue university education → Students felt unfairly-treated - These students also had poorer job prospects compared to those in English-stream schools as the British spoke English and favored English-educated locals and hired them instead of the Chinese-educated locals, which left them with few job prospects other than starting their own businesses, becoming hawkers, etc. → Students felt unfairly-treated - In 1954, the British introduced compulsory National Service for males aged 18-20 → War had disrupted schooling so many Chinese middle school students qualified for it → They did not want their studies to be further disrupted + Thought they would be sent to fight in the Malayan jungle for the Emergency → They were both upset at the prospect of their studies being disrupted and unwilling to defend the colonial government due to their previous unfair treatment → Male and female students held a peaceful demonstration to petition for NS postponement but were rejected → Police deployed by British to end demonstrations → More demonstrations continued over the weeks, with students locking themselves in Chung Cheng High School → British postponed NS registration → Students’ views that the British were unwilling to look after their interests reinforced - SCMSSU - Singapore Chinese Middle School Students’ Union - British sent police to break up anti-National Service demonstrations → Students thought the British were not genuine in their attempts to introduce constitutional changes → Distrust of British amongst students increased → Students wanted to promote anti-colonial ideals → Formation of student groups such as the SCMSSU Trade Unions - Lim Chin Siong and Fong Swee Suan, former Chinese middle school students - Devan Nair, Jamit Singh and Sidney Woodhull, English-educated men - Set up to protect the rights and welfare of workers in Singapore by improving their working conditions → British did not resolve disputes about workers’ pay and working conditions → Trade unions remained suspicious of the British despite their promise of self-governance - Singapore Factory and Shop Workers Union (SFSWU) and Singapore Bus Workers Union (SBWU) were under the influence of the Malayan Communist Party (MCP) - Many members of these trade unions wanted immediate change to their working conditions → They protested in the streets to secure their demands - Active in organizing anti-colonial activities (unions, protests), which reached out to and influenced the views of the masses → British grew suspicious of trade unions as they feared these unions were under communist influence and would stir up unrest in Singapore → Jermaine Wong (31) - 210 History: Unit 2 and 3 Members of trade unions were often arrested → Trade unions’ distrust of British increased further → Many members did not want to work within the Rendel Commission* *Excluding Lim Chin Siong and Fong Swee Suan, who made an agreement to join the PAP SPP LF PAP Students Trade Unions Political Standpoint Willing to work with British Against colonial rule Against colonial rule Against colonial rule Against colonial rule Political Aims Gradual progress towards selfgovernment Immediate selfgovernment Immediate independence Protect workers’ interests Unite Singapore with Malaya Other Aims Immediate political change Further their education in Singapore Improve conditions for workers Better job prospects Limited Self-Government - LF formed a coalition government with the Alliance Party - David Marshall became the first Chief Minister - LF wanted to win support from the people by pushing for internal self-government from the British → Launched the Merdeka Week campaign in 1956 to demonstrate to the British that the people of Singapore wanted freedom from colonial rule + Led two delegations to London to negotiate for internal self-government - First Merdeka Talks: David Marshall promised to resign should he fail → David Marshall failed to negotiate for internal self-government in 1956 as the British felt that SIngapore was not ready for it → David Marshall resigned as Chief Minister in 1956 - Second Merdeka Talks: Lim Yew Hock, the new Chief Minister, led a second delegation in 1957 and succeeded in securing internal self-government for Singapore Demands on LF Government - Trade Unions and Chinese Middle School Students - Felt unfairly treated and wanted more changes to improve their employment and education opportunities → Felt LF was still under British control → Distrusted LF - Marshall sympathized with their demands → LF did not take strong action against them [for causing unrest with the Hock Lee Bus Riots and other strikes / riots] - British Government - Wanted Marshall to give authority for British troops during Hock Lee Bus Riots → Marshall did not take strong action against trade unions and Chinese middle school students as they were not in charge of internal security → They continued to cause Jermaine Wong (31) 210 History: Unit 2 and 3 unrest → British did not think LF, under Marshall, could govern Singapore on its own → Rejected Marshall’s delegation to London Jermaine Wong (31) 210 History: Unit 2 and 3 Difficulties Faced by LF - Did not win majority of seats [10 / 25) → Formed coalition government [different political parties cooperate] → Opposing viewpoints on policies → Difficult to execute plans to govern Singapore effectively - Marshall’s inability to compromise → Singapore did not get self-rule from British → Other parties used this is an excuse to criticize LF as a weak government - Faced a lot of opposition [from the people, other political parties and the British] → Difficult to execute plans to govern Singapore effectively - PAP: Tools of British; SPP: Radicals - People: Hock Lee Bus Riots [one month after LF took over] - British: Failed Merdeka Talks - Not prepared to win → Lack of experience and expertise (capability) to govern the people → Not prepared for office → Did not know how to govern Singapore effectively LF’s Positive Changes - Meet the People’s sessions - Workers’ welfare laws http://eresources.nlb.gov.sg/infopedia/articles/SIP_2014-07-07_134339.html Markbands - L3 (11-13m) - Correct, Logical - CRAP + CEEC - Clear Claim → Answer the question [understand the question] - Relevant Evidence → Supports the claim - Accurate Explanation → Explains the evidence - Precise Conclusion → Links claim to question - L4 (14-15m) - Contextual [refers closely to question + historical context] - See how different events are interlinked - One event is affected not just by one factor, but by various factors interplayed PPA Tips - Dissect the Statement - Identify the focus issue of the statement - LF victory - Identify the alternative perspectives on the focus issue – at least two - LF won because it had a compelling vision - LF had multiracial members + Marshall was a good speaker - Identify if alternative perspectives are subset of the given perspectives - Marshall’s good speeches made the LF vision compelling - LF’s multiracial members made the LF vision compelling - Check that premises [claim + explanation] are relevant and accurate → Cannot be rebutted Jermaine Wong (31) - 210 History: Unit 2 and 3 Insightful Claim + Relevant Evidence: Comparison to other political parties Post-War Problems (BMA, 1945-46) - Food: There was insufficient food due to the disruption of trade → People had to obtain certain foods from the black market → The black market thrived → Food continued to be sold at high prices - Housing: Houses were scarce → People had to live in cramped, overcrowded spaces + Rents were high due to the high demand and lack of supply - Education: Many students’ educations was disrupted by the war and Japanese Occupation → They wanted to resume their education once the occupation was over → There were insufficient schools, teachers, or textbooks to meet the demand for education - Employment: Trade had been disrupted during the occupation and needed time to recover + Some students whose education had been disrupted during the occupation chose not to resume their education → Many people wanted to enter the workforce but jobs were limited → Many faced unemployment LF Manifesto - Immediate Self-Government - Unity with the Federation - Eventual independence within the Commonwealth - Creation of a Singapore Citizenship - Right to vote and stand for election - Provision of multilingual facilities in the legislature - Repeal of Emergency Regulations - Revision of banishment laws - Allow trade unions to associate freely and set up political funds - Creation of a Welfare State - Housing - Government housing agency - Direct government subsidy - Lower interest rates on government loans - Slum clearance - Healthcare - District general hospitals, Outpatient clinics, Maternity wards - All medical services to be free for all [except those who can pay] - Employment - Unemployment insurance - Minimum wage Jermaine Wong (31) 210 History: Unit 4 History Unit 4 Notes Organs of State (1959) - Judiciary - Independent: Functions without the involvement of the Executive and the Legislative to prevent corruption and bribery, so that Singapore is governed responsibly - Executive - Cabinet: Comprises the ruling party, headed by the prime minister, which executes and administers based on the bills passed - Legislative - Parliament: Comprises ministers from the ruling and opposition parties in order to attain different perspectives on areas concerning governance - Holds debates to decide on which bills should be passed Limited Self-Government (1955) Full Internal Self-Government (1959) Committees Involved Consisted of Council of Ministers and Legislative Assembly Council of Ministers replaced by Cabinet; More people in Legislative Assembly → More locals ministers Areas of Control British in charge of defence, internal security [finances] and external affairs; Governor had veto power Locals and British had shared control of internal security; Governor no longer had veto power Head of State Governor of Singapore [British] Yang di-Pertuan Negara [local Yusof Ishak] 1959 Elections - Labour Front reformed into Singapore People’s Alliance - PAP won with 43 seats; SPA only won 4 seats PAP - Why did the PAP emerge as a viable political force after 1955? Why did the PAP win the 1959 elections? - Capitalized on LF’s actions of suppressing communist - Had strong awareness of the 1959 electorate and understood the needs of the masses (e.g. speeches in Mandarin and dialects) - Adaptability to the 1959 electorate (e.g. LKY learned to speak Mandarin and dialects) - Appealed to and gained the support of the masses by defending the Chinese working class who felt oppressed by LF - Exposed corruption within the LF → Weakened LF, Strengthened PAP - Well-Organized (e.g. white uniform = purity, no corruption) Jermaine Wong (31) 210 History: Unit 4 Political Challenges - Communist influence within the PAP - Garner the people’s support Economic Challenges - Unemployment: Create jobs for the people - Set up factories - Attract investors Social Challenges - Public sentiments about the PAP - Vices (smoking, drinking, gambling) - Western influence Communism - - No private ownership [state ownership] Classless society Socialism - Meritocracy → Hire fairly Welfare of the people Capitalism - - British Government on Independence - Believed it to be impossible - Singapore was a small country - Singaporean politicians were inexperienced - Communist threat → Political instability Singapore Government under PAP - Believed it to be impossible - Singapore was a small country - Singapore did not have resources - Political survival (communist situation, promise to the people) Malayan Government - Believed it would not benefit Malaya - Large Chinese population → Bumiputera privileges - Communist threat from Singapore Cartoon - Who is being depicted? - Why have they been drawn that way? - What was the political period at that time? - What roles do they play (picture → real life)? Privately-owned and runned businesses Personal wealth Rich-poor divide → Income inequalities Jermaine Wong (31) 210 History: Unit 4 Reasons for Merger Singapore - Economic prosperity - Access to natural resources in Malaya - Less competition with Malaya - Economic investments - Political Stability - No more communist threat in Malaya - Leads to economic prosperity Malaya - Political Stability - No more communist threat in Malaya Britain - Protect economic and political connections How do the decisions made by leaders shape the development of its country? - Decisions are made by perception - Decisions be influenced by perceptions - Possible consequences when decisions are made based on perceptions Decolonization - British realized that the people in Singapore were developing anti-British sentiments → They needed to let Singapore go - Singapore wanted merger with Malaya in order to gain independence - Tunku did not want merger in the 50s because Singapore was facing communist threats [politically unstable] and Malaya already had their own issues with communists - Tunku believed merger would only bring the communists back to Malaya → He did not want another Malayan Emergency Harold Macmillan Lee Kuan Yew Tunku He perceived that merger would maintain British ties with Singapore and still give them political and economic benefits - military bases in Singapore and Malaya. He perceived that merger would bring about independence for Singapore and make it more politically stable. He perceived that merger would bring about both political and economic benefit for Malaya. Political + Economic He perceived that merger would be highly beneficial for both SIngapore and Malaya Malaya was anti-communist → It would handle communist threat once merged. He perceived merger as a way to retain and strengthen the superiority of the Malays Merger with Sabah, Sarawak and Brunei → Gain land, resources, finances. Political + Economic Political + Economic Jermaine Wong (31) 210 History: Unit 4 1950s Singaporean leaders were pursuing merger; Singapore’s road to independence April 1961 - Ong Eng Guan resigned from PAP and contested against and defeated PAP at the Lim by-election May 1961 - Tunku suggested merger in a speech [Big Unity Plan] July 1961 - Radicals redrew support for PAP during Anson by-elections → PAP lost to Marshall (WP) - 13 members of PAP supported radicals and were expelled from PAP August 1961 - Radicals + PAP members formed the Barisan Sosialis - Anti-merger → Could not deny merger from happening, but encouraged people to void their votes by turning in blank slips, etc. Referendum - No option to say no to merger: Point of argument that Barisan Sosialis put forth Terms of Merger - Singapore could hold elections to elect its own government [SG gains] - Singapore would have control over education and labor in Singapore [SG gains] - Singapore would leave control of the armed forces, police, and foreign affairs to the Central Government of KL [Malaysia gains → Did not trust Singapore with its own armed forces] - Singapore citizens would become Malaysian ‘nationals’ → Not citizens as they would not have the same rights as Malaysian citizens (could not vote in Malaysian elections outside Singapore) → Barisan Sosialis argued this at first, until Tunku changed this and they no longer had a point against merger Were the seeds of separation planted since the pre-merger days? Singapore - Japanese Occupation (1942-45) Elections → SPP’s motto of progressive independence (1948) Maria Hertogh Riots (1950) Anti-NS Riots (1954) Hock Lee Bus Riots → Contest of Ideas on Communism, Democracy (1955) Elections → Labour Front(1955) Elections → PAP: Contest of Ideas on Merger (1959) Malaya - - Japanese Occupation (1942-45) Malayan Union → Formation of UMNO, No Singapore + No sultans = Negative reactions (1946) Federation of Malaya → Sultans (1948) Malayan Emergency → Communist threats (1948-60) Malayan Independence → British were pleased with firm Malayan governance (1957) Big Unity Plan, Mighty Malaysia - Merger only if Sabah, Sarawak and Brunei merged with Malaya as well Jermaine Wong (31) 210 History: Unit 4 Contest of Ideas - Riots: Communism vs. Democracy - PAP: Merger or no merger? - Barisan Sosialis: Not just merger, but what type of merger? Reasons for Merger - Political: Independence for Singapore from the British - Economic: Common market (no taxes on goods traded between Singapore and Malaya) → Increased trade + employment opportunities - Social: Familial ties in Malaya Tunku - Worried about increasing communist influence in Singapore as it might spread to Malaya - Wanted to clamp down on the Barisan Sosialis through the Internal Security Act once merged - Did not want to grant Singapore citizens the right to vote as they might cause Malayan government to lose control (vote for own leaders) Barisan Sosialis - Singapore citizens would not enjoy the same rights as Malayan citizens - Discrimination against Singapore citizens because they were not Federal citizens (only Federal nationals → Would not qualify for all the rights, benefits citizens enjoyed) - Trade unions restricted (could not form trade unions with both Malayan and Singaporean members) Was the Referendum a dishonest one? For No ‘no’ Option Intent: To see if the people needed to merge → All options were for merger → Does not fairly reflect the sentiments of the people [those against merger] Against Merger was accepted by all parties (Barisan agreed) as the best solution → ‘No’ option was unnecessary as even if Barisan disagreed, they could not propose a better alternative except communist government (PAP worried) Singaporean Flag ‘Vote for Option A’ + ‘X’ on Option A in instructional videos + Singaporean flag in Option A → Illiterate or psychologically persuaded voters may choose A because of flag → Manipulating and deceiving people Terms for merger matter more than the flags shown → People will read the terms to cast their votes, not vote based on the flags Blank Votes Whether or not there was a blank vote clause, the outcome would be the same (70% option A) → The clause did not affect the outcome as the people wanted merger Blank votes would count as a vote for the option with majority of votes → Unfair because did not count the votes as void, or against merger Jermaine Wong (31) 210 History: Unit 4 Was it wrong for the ruling party to have control over the RCs and community centers? - It was their right. Now, the ruling party allows opposition parties more freedom, but at greater cost. Consequences of Merger - 16 September 1963: Formation of Malaysia - Separation - Clash of political ideologies - Clash of personalities Terms of Merger - Singapore had more autonomy compared to the other merged states Financial Concerns - Federal Government wanted to control all major taxation in Singapore, collect virtually all taxes and allocate the money according to Singapore’s needs - How would the proceeds of the federal tax be attributed? - How would Singapore’s tax be collected and apportioned? - Goh Keng Swee agreed that financial policies were a Federal concern, but wanted Singapore to control the collection and disbursement of its taxes so there would be enough to run facilities (healthcare, education, welfare) - Singapore’s PoV: M$50-60 million per year to Federal Government; Federal Government PoV: Allowance for Singapore [too much leeway and economic autonomy for SG?; signed contract for Common Market but did not execute → “discuss”] External Perspective - Indonesia - Sukarno saw the New Federation as “neo-colonialist” and was against merger - Sabotage campaign since September 1963 - Konfrontasi (1963-66) - Philippines - Saw Sabah as part of the Sulu kingdom and belonged to them - Compromises: Both Singapore and Malaya Concessions: Singapore [something you give in return for something] Singapore State Parliament was not proportionately represented in Federal Parliament - Not enough people to represent Singapore → Will not be able to assert opinion, make their comments heard - PAP leaders agreed to give up proportional representation for autonomy Malaya: Communal politics [split by race] Singapore: Non-communal politics [multiracial] Jermaine Wong (31) 210 History: Unit 4 Jermaine Wong (31) 210 History: Unit 4 1963: Singapore State Elections - PAP won 3 seats from Singapore Alliance - Alliance vowed to defeat PAP 1964: Federal Elections - PAP won 1 seat only; “non-communal Malaysia” 1964: UMNO - Utusan Melayu + Secretary General → Anti-PAP Campaign 1964: July + September Riots - Goodwill Committee (after July riots) - Singapore Alliance announced preparations for 1967 elections 1965: Separation - May: PAP + Opposition parties + “Malaysian Malaysia” → MSC - August: Separation What Led to Separation - Breaching of Malaysia Agreement - Both parties agreed not to challenge each other politically for the next two years, but both did - PAP first breached this by participating in Federal Government elections - Alliance felt threatened and in turn, participated in Singapore’s elections - Leaders’ Actions and Decisions Economic and Political Factors - Economic Reasons - Federal Government’s delay in the setting up of the Common Market - Attempts of the Federal Government to increase Singapore’s economic contributions - Political Reasons - Political rivalry between the PAP and the Alliance; UMNO with MCA - Race-based (communal) vs. Multiracial (non-communal) politics - Malaysian Solidarity Convention: ‘Malaysian Malaysia’ campaign EYA - - 1 hour 40 min (40%, 33m) Section A: Source Analysis - 2 Inference (5m x 2) - 1 Reliability (8m) Section B: Judgmental Essay (15m) - Claim → Agree [CEEC] → Disagree [CEEC] → Conclusion - Explain cause and effect in historical context - Historical knowledge as evidence Reliability - Inference + Source Evidence - Cross reference other sources in paper [contextual knowledge] - Cross reference historical knowledge Jermaine Wong (31) 210 History: Unit 4 What is an unreliable source? - Inconsistent with other sources - Inaccuracies and biases within sources - Written a long time after the event 3Cs - Credibility Consistency Corroboration How to do Reliability Question - Source Content - Claim Source analysis [evidence + elaboration] → L4 (3-4m) Cross-reference Source A and B → L5 (5-6m) Corroborate with historical knowledge → L5 (7-8m) Conclusion The events leading up to 9 August 1965 show that Singapore was largely to be blamed for separation from Malaysia. Agree - Singapore had a confrontational approach - Singapore did not fulfil the terms of the Malaysian agreement EYA Time Allocation - 30 min: Inference Questions [15 min each] - 20 min: Reliability Question - 40 min: Judgmental Essay [20 min each] - 10 min: Checking Reliability Tips - Comprehend what the source says - Corroboration with historical knowledge (about same event or issue) - Cross-reference with other sources in paper + external sources ● CONTENT only: No need to evaluate source purpose Political Cartoons - People identified - Items identified - Captions explained - Things in background - Underlying attitude (cartoonist) - Remember context Jermaine Wong (31) 210 History: Unit 4 - Exact actions Essay Question (15m) - Level 2 (8-10m): Only shows one viewpoint → Basic, shallow - Level 3 (11-13m): Shows both viewpoints → Logical, valid - Difference in Marks: Depth and clarity (2 pieces of evidence) - Level 4 (14-15m): Shows both viewpoints → Insightful How to Answer - It can be agreed that (question) because (action) when they (event) - Claims are about the event = Logical (L3) - It can be agreed that (question) because throughout merger, they (action) - The PAP det in motion Singapore’s separation from merger because throughout merger they behaved in a manner which challenged the Alliance government and caused political tension → Overall picture - Look at the similarities between examples to craft the overarching claim - Another example where the PAP (repeat claim) is when… It was the PAP and not the Alliance that set in motion Singapore’s separation from Malaysia. - “Set in motion” means that the things the PAP did caused it - Question does not state time period → Assumptions - Merger has already occurred - Separation: Terms of Merger not met + Other events - Significant Events → Evidence - 1964 Federal Elections - Broke the gentleman’s agreement between PMs - Competed using different ideology (multiracial) - 1965 Malaysian Solidarity Convention (Malaysian Malaysia) - Challenged the authority of the Alliance - PAP’s protest against tax increase in 1965 - Fund Konfrontasi efforts → No cooperation, disobedience - PAP’s differing ideologies towards Malay community - Alliance: Affirmative Action → Bumiputera, Malay special rights policies to uplift Malay community - PAP: Equal opportunities and education to uplift Malay community Timeline of Events - 1959 - Government system - 51 elected members (all local) - Head of State, Prime Minister - Singapore’s state symbols - Areas of government - Shared: Internal security - British: External - Singapore: Social, economic - Areas of development Jermaine Wong (31) 210 History: Unit 4 - - - - - 1961 - 1962 - 1963 - - - - ● 1964 - Housing development (e.g. Queenstown) Healthcare development (vaccinations, hospitals, etc.) Education development (morning and afternoon sessions → every child to have a place in school) - Industrialization in Jurong PAP not contented - New sense of identity to avoid communal tensions - Prepare minds of people for social revolution promised Political crises - April: Ong Eng Guan wanted to attack LKY in 1960 conference → Sacked from PAP → Participated in Hong Lim by-elections and won 73% of votes - July: David Marshall contested and won (narrowly) Anson by-elections - August: LKY expelled Lim, Fong and other radical PAP members → Formed Barisan Sosialis (took 35 branches, including those of LKY, Toh, Rajaratnam) September: Referendum - PAP made use of authority to get people to vote for merger - Barisan: Asked people to turn in blank votes → Last minute change: All blank votes for the majority - 71% voted Option A (PAP’s choice) and 26% cast blank votes → PAP could recover from their initial collapse February: Operation Coldstore - Radicals and suspects arrested due to the potential political instability they could cause in Singapore - LKY campaigned in all 51 constituencies while Barisan’s leadership was detained July: Sukarno launched campaign to ‘crush Malaysia’ - September: New Federation of Malaysia came into being despite Indonesia’s protests → Indonesia starts Konfrontasi Political rivalry between UMNO and PAP as PAP beat Alliance in three constituencies during the state elections April: Federal Elections where PAP won one seat July, August: Racial riots fuelled by Malay ultra-nationalists who wanted UMNO to regain political ground lost to Singapore during 1963 state, 1964 federal elections November: New taxes imposed on Singapore 1965 - January: Konfrontasi where Singapore’s MacDonald House was bombed - May: PAP held the Malaysian Solidarity Convention - August: Separation of Singapore from Malaysia Other Factors - Industrialization Program: Few SG companies exempted from taxes - Delay in setting up Common Market
