timeline - acsiansacsi.files.wordpress.com€¦ · web view1948 election. 3 seats won by spp, 3...
TRANSCRIPT
HACA NOTES
Contents
TIMELINE 2
LEADERSHIP STYLES 3
ARGUMENTS AS TO WHY LEADERS ARE MADE/BORN 3
ELECTIONS 4
STUDIES AND POLLS 5
MERGER AND STUFF 7
EFFECTS OF MERGER 9
SEPARATION 10
A NEW NATION 12
MORE GKS AND LKY LEADERSHIP STYLES 13
1
TIMELINE
1948 Election 3 Seats won by SPP, 3 seats won by independents
1955 Rendel Constitution a. Reviewed Constitutionb. Local people’s greater
participation in the government
Recommended that Singapore should be given limited self-government
1955 Election LF won without majority vote, David Marshall became Chief Minister
1956 David Marshall steps down Unable to fulfill his goal of te Merdeka talks
1957 Lim Yew Hock Completes Merdeka talks (full self governance was given)
1959 Election PAP won 43/51 seats
27 May 1961 Tunku’s proposal for merger
1962 Cobbold Commission Set up by Malayan and British governments to find out if the people of Sabah and Sarawak want to join Malaysia. ⅔ of the people favoured merger. Malaysia would be formed on 31 August 1963.
Singapore: A part of Malaysia
1962 Singapore Referendum People voted for what kind of merger they wanted
1963 Singapore General Elections SAP lost all their seats while PAP won 37/51
1964 Malaysian Federal Elections Alliance won 89 seats, PAP won 1 seat (bangsar, K.L)
21 July 1964 Racial Riots Prophet Mohamad’s Birthday procession, July riots-23 dead, 454 injured
September Racial riots 13 died, 106 injured
PAP and Alliance agreement 1. Not to raise racial matters2. Not to challenge each
other politically for 2 years
Alliance called for a major reorganisation Beat PAP in 1967 SGE
PAP set up Malaysian Solidarity Convention Invited non-communal opposition parties from Sabah, Sarawak and MalaysiaCalled for “Malaysian Malaysia”, equality for all races
Independent Singapore
9 August 1965 Singapore separates from Malaysia
16 September 1965 Singapore joins UN
8 August 1967 Singapore co-founder of ASEAN
2
LEADERSHIP STYLESAUTHORITARIAN PARTICIPATIVE DELEGATIVE
Only leader can feedback and make the decision
Leader makes final decision
Leader may input feedback but leader has responsibility for decision made.
Members have no say Members can input feedback
Members have full control
Army Government Product design
Effective in highly stressful situations
Statistically the most effective
Best for creative output
Albatross files 1979 Goh Report Project Magpie (Tay Eng Soon)
Graduate Mothers Scheme
PM Tony Tan>GCT Singapore River Clean-up
ARGUMENTS AS TO WHY LEADERS ARE MADE/BORN
● Made○ Experience○ Learn from role models○ Learning opportunities○ EQ can be learnt○ Learning from mistakes○ Advantaged background○ Expectations (Family, heritage)
● Born○ In the genes○ Physically stronger and more attractive○ Intellectually smarter (IQ cannot be taught)○ Ambitious character
3
ELECTIONS
1948 1955 1959 1963 SGE 1964 MFE13 800 160 000 520 000 - -
6 legislative seats
Chief Minister
6 elected ministers
25 elected non-officials
Full self-government
- -
SPP LF, PAP, SPP LF, PAP SAP, PAP Alliance, PAP
3 Independent
3 SPP
LF without a majority vote
PAP won 43/51 seats
PAP won 37/51 seats
SPP lost all
PAP won 1 seat
- David Marshall became first CM
LYH became second CM
LKY became PM
YBI became Head of State
- -
4
STUDIES AND POLLS
1955 1962 1962
Rendel Constitution Cobbold Commission Singapore Referendum
Review the constitution of Singapore
Find out if the people of Sabah and Sarawak wanted to join the Federation
Vote how Singapore would merge with Malaysia
- -A Autonomy of
labour + Own state flag
B Merge with one of the other 11 states
C Merge with the same conditions given to Sabah and sarawak
5
Recommended 1:6:25
SG Health
Education
Trade and Industry
Housing
British Law
Internal Security
External Defence
External Affairs
Finance
Reported that 70% favoured merger
A was favoured at 71%
6
MERGER AND STUFFSINGAPORE M Common
MarketMore trade Goods can be
bought and sold freely between the 2 countriesNo import and export tariffs
Increased trade
Bigger market for Singapore’s businesses
E Employment More jobsR Raw materials
from MalayaRubber
Tin
Palm oil
G Government Independence
MALAYA E The Red Enemy
Communists Malaya was strongly anti-communist
Believed that if they merged with SG they could prevent any communist uprising from there
R Singapore’s Revenue
To build Malaysia’s
7
infrastructure
SINGAPORE MALAYSIA AGREED
COMMON MARKET
Suggested common market before merger
Common market would increase trade between Singapore and Malaya. Industries would group, creating more jobs.
Wanted common market after merger
Malaysian industries would face competition from Singapore factories and companies and Malaya wanted to protect her own companies
Set up the common market gradually
Singapore would hand over 40% of revenue in exchange for common market
CASH (Borneo loan)
Cannot afford to give M$50m as a gift as it was needed for own developments
Wanted Singapore to give M$50m as a gift to develop Sabah and Sarawak
Singapore to lend M$150m to be repaid in 15 years, with no interest being charged on the first M$100m. Singapore was to provide 50% of the labour needed to develop Sabah and Sarawak
CASH (Revenue from Singapore)
To collect own revenue and send the agreed sum of money each year to KL as taxes
To collect the revenue for Singapore and give what is needed back to run the state
Singapore would hand 40% of trade and tax revenue to Malaysia. Such a huge amount was required for the maintenance of the army
CONSTITUTION (Malay rights)
All citizens in Singapore enjoy equal rights
Wanted special privileges to be enjoyed by Malays in Singapore
Recognised special position of Malays as indiginous people of Singapore
Malays would be given free education up to university level (SG)
Help would be given to improve Malay economic and social position (SG)
CONSTITUTION(Seats in parliament)
Entitled to 24 seats in Malaysian Federal Parliament based on population while controlling labour and education policies
Wanted Singapore to adopt Malaya’s labour and education policies
Singapore given 15 seats in exchange for control of labour and education policies
8
CITIZENSHIP Retain citizenship while becoming nationals of Malaya
SG could not vote in Malaysia’s Federal Elections
Malaya could not vote in Singapore's General Elections
Could take part in elections of both sides provided candidates are citizens respective territories
PAP BS
Supported the merger Opposed the mergerOrganised rallies and radio talks Organised labour strikes and
student demonstrationsBanners and poster Rallies
EFFECTS OF MERGER
BRUNEI INDONESIA BRUNEI
Unable to agree on economic terms
Believed Sabah and Sarawak was rightfully theirs
Believed Sabah was rightfully theirs
Didn’t merge in the end
Broke off diplomatic and trade relations in 1963
Launched Konfrontasi
Broke off ties with Malaysia
9
SEPARATION1963 SGE Central government in Kuala
Lumpur made a public statement to reorganise the SAP to defeat PAP in the next Singapore General Elections
1964 MFE Alliance leaders were upset with the PAP
PAP represented a future threat to Malay political dominance in Malaysia
PAP might gain support of MalaysPAP broke its promise to not participate in MFE
Alliance started anti-PAP campaigns
Some UMNO leaders (Syed Ja’afar Albar) & the Utusan Melayu criticised the PAP for not looking after the Malays in Singapore
July Racial Riots Happened on Prophet Mohammed’s birthday
Resulted in a curfew
Goodwill committees set up
10
September
Racial Riots Curfew imposed again
After this, PAP and Alliance agreed to not raise racial matter, or to challenge each other politically for 2 years
SAP called for a major reorganisation
Malaysian Solidarity Convention
“Malaysian Malaysia” campaign with 4 other opposition parties
Upset Alliance leaders
Seemed to question the special rights given to Malays in Malaysia
Some UMNO leaders called for the arrest of LKY
Creation of new taxes in Singapore
Discouraged people from setting up businesses there
Increase in revenue contribution
From 40% to 60%
Order to close the Bank of China
KL claimed the BOC was sending funds to communists fighting in the jungles of Malaysia
Singapore said that closing
11
the bank would cause economic hardship for Singaporeans
Few Pioneer Certificates given to Singapore companies
Pioneer Certificates gives special privileges to new industries like tax breaks, low interest loans, etc.
Common market was never set up
Malaysia saw Singapore as an economic rival
A NEW NATIONSINGAPORE JOINS UN 16 September 1965
SINGAPORE CO-FOUNDING MEMBER OF ASEAN
8 August 1967
12
MORE GKS AND LKY LEADERSHIP STYLESLee Kuan YewAuthoritarian
1962 Singapore Referendum
Lee Kuan Yew was extremely authoritative over merger of Singapore and Malaysia and only gave 3 options to the people of Singapore which all included merger with Malaya. He did not give the people any choice not to merge with Malaya.
Corporal punishment (caning)
One of Lee Kuan Yew’s abiding beliefs has been in the efficiency of corporal punishment in the form of caning. He never understood why western educationists were so much against corporal punishment.
Graduate Mothers Scheme (GMS)
Lee Kuan Yew believed in eugenics despite public backlash. He set up the Graduate Mothers scheme (GMS) and the Social development unit (SDU) and social development service (SDS) separately. This was to encourage socialising between graduated men and women. Tax rebates for schooling and housing priorities for graduate mothers with three or four children.
Participative
Next Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew wanted Dr Tony Tan to take over the helm of his leadership when he stepped down as the PM, but he chose to consult his cabinet on who they wished to lead them as the second PM of Singapore.
Changi Airport Many experts and conversative reactions within the government against the construction of Changi Airport as they preferred Paya Lebar instead over cost and scale and feasibility to complete it. LKY
13
made the final decision with the construction of Changi Airport after considering both sides and expert opinions.
Delegative Creation of Singapore Army
LKY left the building of the national army in the capable hands of Dr Goh Keng Swee and gave him full autonomy to create a defence force (like the National Service Amendment Bill) as he saw fit.
Construction of HDB LKY entrusted the construction and development of the HDB to Lim Kim San. In the first two year of Lim’s ‘crash’ programme, over 2000 units were built, more than what was built in the previous decade. By entrusting this project to a person known for his organizing and planning abilities, LKY was able to solve the large-scale housing problem at the time by simply stepping back and allowing someone more suitable to take the lead.
Goh Keng SweeAuthoritarian Albatross File Contains Goh Keng Swee’s
meeting with the Malaysian Deputy Prime Minister. GKS took the file to Lee Kuan Yew, and forced him to make the decision for Singapore’s separation from Malaysia, although he was hesitant. He refused to back down from his stand, assumed control of the matter, and continued to strongly make his arguments for separation which led to Lee Kuan Yew agreeing to the decision.
Permanent Residency
If a person wanted to obtain Permanent Residency in Singapore and deposited a million dollars or more with the government, they would be granted immediately this status. He simply ordered his secretary and Civil Service
14
veteran Ngiam Tong Dow to give him a list of all applicants without having to write any analysis.Goh Keng Swee’s decision was to approve all the names that Ngiam sent. Even though he protested, Goh Keng Swee still went with his decision, even providing the explanation that once Singapore joined Malaysia, the Malaysian government would be immediately notified of the scheme, and they would definitely disapprove of everyoneBy being firm in his approach, Goh was able to take the most direct method to dealing with the Malay government’s attempts to complicate the matter
Participative Education The deputy prime minister GKS was tasked to lead a study team to investigate and identify the problems of the education system at that time and then come up with some suggestions for reform. They found out various problems in the system such as the high dropout rates, and introduced the streaming system in 1979 in which students can learn at their own pace and within their own capabilities.Through this we can see that GKS had a Democratic style of leadership as he not only let his team have a say in the report but also had the final decision in the writing of the report. As GKS did not have much experience on the first hand running of the education system, he opted to consult his team on what to do, making for a more balanced and informed decision.
Finance Upon appointment as chief of the Monetary Authority of Singapore, Dr Goh Keng Swee improved the
15
investment authority of the MAS.He tasked a team from the Management Services of the Finance Industry to investigate and focus on how that can be accomplished. Eventually the group reported that MAS should focus on developing Singapore as a finance centre and investing the reserves.This showed Dr Goh Keng Swee’s participative leadership as he had the main idea and plan, but still made the final decision.
Delegative Electronic warfare group
In 1971, Goh put together the Electronic Warfare Study Group.He hand-picked three newly graduated engineers to study Electronic Warfare (EW), who were in charge of developing defence technologies for Singapore. Dr. Tay Eng Soon, then a university lecturer, was put in charge of Project Magpie, a secret project to develop Singapore’s defence technology capabilities. Goh Keng Swee’s subordinates were allowed to make their own decisions and he did not have the final say over decisions made by them. He only gave feedback when they asked him questions and did not make any decisions for them.
Code of Conduct
GKS wanted a code of conduct to give the army a sense of purpose and spur them on to fight. He entrusted Father Terrence J. Sheridan, who was experienced in influencing, drafted out the code with input from other staff officers in the army, and so he drafted the code as he saw fit. Dr Goh did not make the final decision in the end but left everything up to the
16
priest. Father J. Sheridan was much more experienced and well-versed in that area than he was and therefore gave him the authority to make the final decision believing that it would be more informed than if he were to make it. It was also without much input as well as little to no supervision on his part. However, as the minister of defence, he still claimed responsibility for all effects of the code of conduct.
17