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 Japanese were unfair →

(persecution) Anger towards Japanese

Eurasians Interned with POWs Japanese were unfair

(persecution) → Assumed to
be British supporters

Malays Allowed to serve in the Japanese supported them

government → Win local by giving them opportunities
support, Less harsh the British didn’t give

Indians Agreed to fight against Witnessed Japanese

british for independence in brutality – Not as good as
india → Win local support, they claimed
Less harsh

Chinese Sook Ching → Japanese were unfair →

Discrimination 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 - Racial riots (internal strife)

- Shared experiences (WW2) - Focused on rebuilding life after war
- Political consciousness - 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

1948 - Federation of Malaya

- Malayan Emergency
- Singapore’s First Elections

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 State-Owned/Managed

- Personal wealth - Businesses
Different classes (upper, - Wealth
middle, lower) 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 Free housing, etc. Where does the Free housing, etc.
Progressive Party No rise in income money come from? No rise income tax
tax Experience from
Tertiary education government in 1948

Democratic Party Free trade Free trade [not what

Housing people wanted]

People’s Action Free education Unrealistic vision → Immediate

Party (children → parent) British would not independence →
Maternity plans agree to immediate Unrealistic vision
(women) independence with
No emergency unprepared and
regulations (chinese inexperienced local
community) leaders

Alliance Party Housing Not specific in

development manifesto → No
Grants for schools clear vision

Labor Front Independence More realistic, Immediate

Welfare state accomplishable than self-governance →
(housing, low other parties’ goals Compelling vision
interests, hospitals) + for the people [rise
No emergency Understand the in political
regulations needs of the people awareness,
Insurance if post-war unhappiness with
unemployed British]
Min. wage = Fair

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 Willing to Against Against Against Against

Standpoint work with colonial rule colonial rule colonial rule colonial rule
British

Political Aims Gradual Immediate Immediate Immediate

progress self- independence political
towards self- government change
government

Other Aims Protect Unite Further their Improve

workers’ Singapore education in conditions for
interests with Malaya Singapore 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 Full Internal Self-Government

(1955) (1959)

Committees Involved Consisted of Council of Council of Ministers replaced

Ministers and Legislative by Cabinet; More people in
Assembly Legislative Assembly → More
locals ministers

Areas of Control British in charge of defence, Locals and British had shared
internal security [finances] and control of internal security;
external affairs; Governor had Governor no longer had veto
veto power 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 Socialism Capitalism

- No private - Meritocracy → Hire - Privately-owned

ownership [state fairly and runned
ownership] - Welfare of the businesses
- Classless society people - Personal wealth
- Rich-poor divide →
Income inequalities

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)?
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 He perceived that merger He perceived that merger

would maintain British ties
with Singapore and still give
them political and economic
benefits - military bases in
Singapore and Malaya.
Political + Economic
would bring about
independence for Singapore
and make it more politically
stable.
He perceived that merger
would be highly beneficial for
both SIngapore and Malaya -
Malaya was anti-communist →
It would handle communist
threat once merged.
Political + Economic
would bring about both
political and economic benefit
for Malaya.
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
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 Malaya

- Japanese Occupation (1942-45) - 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)
- 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 Against

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]
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 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
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
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
- P​eople identified
- I​tems identified
- C​aptions explained
- T​hings in background
- U​nderlying attitude (cartoonist)
- R​emember context
Jermaine Wong (31) 210 History: Unit 4

- E​xact 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

-
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
- 1961
- 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)
- 1962
- 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
- 1963
- 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
- 1964
- 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