• IP addresses are NOT logged in this forum so there's no point asking. Please note that this forum is full of homophobes, racists, lunatics, schizophrenics & absolute nut jobs with a smattering of geniuses, Chinese chauvinists, Moderate Muslims and last but not least a couple of "know-it-alls" constantly sprouting their dubious wisdom. If you believe that content generated by unsavory characters might cause you offense PLEASE LEAVE NOW! Sammyboy Admin and Staff are not responsible for your hurt feelings should you choose to read any of the content here.

    The OTHER forum is HERE so please stop asking.

Indefensible.....papee white-washing Singapore history

metalmickey

Alfrescian
Loyal
Are you even educated? De facto means in substance but not in form. It would be correct to say Taiwan is de facto independent but not to say Singapore is de facto independent. That is because officially Taiwan is not recognized as independent by most countries.

In practice. Meaning that it's really operating as an independent country. "De facto" doesn't mean in substance but not in form. It means in substance and says nothing about the form. As opposed to "de jure" which could mean "in name only".

Singapore right now is de facto and de jure independent. Except - considering that we have so many foreigners in our country, I'm not sure that Singapore is de facto independent.
 

HTOLAS

Alfrescian (Inf)
Asset
You are mainly correct. But do note that de jure means 'by law (or in name)' and not 'by law (or in name) only'.

By most counts, Singapore is right now, just independent - there is no need to qualify it with de facto or de jure.

In practice. Meaning that it's really operating as an independent country. "De facto" doesn't mean in substance but not in form. It means in substance and says nothing about the form. As opposed to "de jure" which could mean "in name only".

Singapore right now is de facto and de jure independent. Except - considering that we have so many foreigners in our country, I'm not sure that Singapore is de facto independent.
 
Last edited:

metalmickey

Alfrescian
Loyal
As for the rest of your post, I'm not sure I understand your meaning or purpose.

It's just to point out that in the period from 1959 to 1963, Singapore was not part of Malaysia. So the merger needs 2 steps: break from the British, join with Malaysia. That's why they took place 15 days apart. It was not as though the British granted independence to Malaysia and therefore Singapore since Singapore is a part of Malaysia.

British having defence in Singapore is like US having defence in Japan up till now. But nobody considers Japan a colony of the US.
 

HTOLAS

Alfrescian (Inf)
Asset
Not quite the same. Singapore did not have any military forces or command structure under its own sovereign control until independence in 1965. Japan, on the other hand, has had its own Self Defense Forces and its own command structure not long after surrender.

British having defence in Singapore is like US having defence in Japan up till now. But nobody considers Japan a colony of the US.
 

metalmickey

Alfrescian
Loyal
Not quite the same. Singapore did not have any military forces or command structure under its own sovereign control until independence in 1965. Japan, on the other hand, has had its own Self Defense Forces and its own command structure not long after surrender.

OK, but for a very long time (not sure about now) Japan couldn't really defend itself and had to rely on the US to do most of the security. If there was a war between Japan Self Defence force and North Korea, North Korea would win. If there was a battle between SAF and Malaysia, SAF would win the first round.
 

eatshitndie

Alfrescian (Inf)
Asset
this is all very interesting. like to illustrate the "asian" concept of sovereignty with two examples.

hong kong. hong kong is never a sovereign entity even though it has its own goverment, people, borders, laws, after the british handover in 1997. the prc moved right in after midnight of the handover ceremony to secure british colonial offices. not one second wasted for hk to "live" in nanosecond independence. the pla took over military and defence responsibilities and prc state apparatus took over foreign affairs while leaving almost all of police, customs, immigration, courts, emergency services (internal or home departments) which were run by hongkies intact. "almost all" as the public security bureau of the prc (secret police) inserted some of their elements in the hk system. they also started behind the scenes work at the legco and the head office of the sar. although it's "one cuntry two systems", hk is essentially now an integral part of the prc with its sovereignty hopes bashed for as long as the commies are in power.

okinawa. before this "u.s. territory" was handed over or back to japan, all road signs were american and the driver drove on the right side of the road. measurements were in imperial except for u.s. military units of measure. when the handover happened, the japs were ready to take over at midnight with no seconds lost, and they changed all the road signs, repainted the roads, converted all units of measure and signs in gov offices, literally overnight, from midnight to 5am in the morning. when the first resident driver woke up in the morning, he found everything on the road changed, as though he woke up in japan. :eek:
 

scroobal

Alfrescian
Loyal
Guys, let not get confused or get overcomplicated. Independence is unlike registration of a professional such as doctor or lawyer to practice. There is a clear line and formalities governed by law for a doctor or lawyer to practice.

The UN is not a registration body for independence and there is no supra national body that exist that does that. Many Arab countries do not recognise Israel as an independent country that does not mean that they are not a sovereign state. Taiwan is in similar state.

There is no such thing as formal independence, de facto independence or registered sovereignty. When old man declared independence on 31st Aug 1963, no country or power objected including Indonesia and Philippines which both opposed any form of the Malaysian merger.

The term defacto is usually attached when a piece of territory or province start to act on it own with the actual govt unable to control or influence the renegade action. This is usually precursor to become independent.
 

kukubird58

Alfrescian
Loyal
hahaha....as I said before....if the thing is already so clear to some of you that Singapore was independent for 15 days in 1963,
and it is not even mentioned as a 1 liner in the history books, pse do the practical and pro-active thing.....
there are many channels to bring this up.....blogs/facebooks/main media forums/opps parties; etc...
especially for opps parties (SDP/WP/SPP/SDA/RP; etc...), u all should have the resources to research this and take this up with papee
such omission in the history is a sign of dishonesty and indefensible if true...

get this officially interpreted and corrected if required....surely this is a reasonable request.

the reason why no country objected is very simple.....nobody hiew LKY's proclaimation...
same thing as if u disregard somebody, u don't give a fxxk what the guy says/proclaims.
being independent was not pre-requisite for the merger....Sabah & Sarawak were not independent states/countries before joining the Federation.
 
Last edited:

cass888

Alfrescian
Loyal
You are incorrect. "De Facto" does mean "in fact but not in form/law". You can say that Deng Xiaopeng was the de facto leader of China because he was in fact the leader but in law Jiang Zemin was the leader. After Deng Xiaopeng died, Jiang Zemin was the leader. NOT the de facto leader but the real leader.

If you want to stretch it a bit, you can call Xi Jingping the de facto leader of China because the President of China is still Hu Jintao and the Prime Minister Wen Jiabao.

You do not use "De Facto" if "De Jure" also applies. You say Singapore is independent. You do not say that Singapore is de facto independent. That is incorrect usage.


In practice. Meaning that it's really operating as an independent country. "De facto" doesn't mean in substance but not in form. It means in substance and says nothing about the form. As opposed to "de jure" which could mean "in name only".

Singapore right now is de facto and de jure independent. Except - considering that we have so many foreigners in our country, I'm not sure that Singapore is de facto independent.
 

kukubird58

Alfrescian
Loyal
Time to bury the snake with this thread!

Enough of last prayers! Just fuck off!
hahaha....the usual bullying style..
I swee swee 1......u want me to disappear very simple....
write to the press/blogs of ministars, opps leaders, social activists and and many other channels to champion this...
if it gets debated and endorsed/corrected.....kukubird will not stay a minute longer.
 
Last edited:

kingrant

Alfrescian
Loyal
Take it as a form of mild reminder that you promised to FO.

Now you haggle, struggle, clutch at straws...pathetic.

hahaha....the usual bullying style..
I swee swee 1......u want me to disappear very simple....
write to the press/blogs of ministars, opps leaders, social activists and and many other channels to champion this...
if it gets debated and endorsed/corrected.....kukubird will not stay a minute longer.
 

kukubird58

Alfrescian
Loyal
Take it as a form of mild reminder that you promised to FO.

Now you haggle, struggle, clutch at straws...pathetic.
hahaha....u are just another emptry vessel.....mouth talk lumpar song only...
why you dare not take it outside the forum......scared to make a fool of yourself outside of SBF is it?????
 
Last edited:

metalmickey

Alfrescian
Loyal
You are incorrect. "De Facto" does mean "in fact but not in form/law". You can say that Deng Xiaopeng was the de facto leader of China because he was in fact the leader but in law Jiang Zemin was the leader. After Deng Xiaopeng died, Jiang Zemin was the leader. NOT the de facto leader but the real leader.

If you want to stretch it a bit, you can call Xi Jingping the de facto leader of China because the President of China is still Hu Jintao and the Prime Minister Wen Jiabao.

You do not use "De Facto" if "De Jure" also applies. You say Singapore is independent. You do not say that Singapore is de facto independent. That is incorrect usage.

Look, which of these statements is closer to "Singapore is independent"?

1. Singapore is de facto independent
2. Singapore is de jure independent

In other words, which is more important, form or substance?

And during those 15 days, in which sense was Singapore not de jure independent? Was it de jure a part of Malaysia, or de jure a part of Britain?

And also, just before Deng Xiaoping died, how can Deng Xiaoping and Jiang Zemin both be the de facto leader at the same time?
 
Last edited:

tanwahtiu

Alfrescian
Loyal
To ALL:

The word independant should be eradicted from Malaysia history and rewrite in another form. The history of Singapore and Malaysia was written like servants free from the master, the Pommies, for independent. Some new words to use to replace independent to justify Pommies invasion and colonization was illegal, un qualified and barbaric in the first place.

The locals do not own Pommies a living. It was greed for raw materials like tin that the greed Pommies want but instead of trading with the locals they wanted it all under the control of their administration.

SEA long history before the Pommies were great history until these white greedy bastards from a small island in North Europe came, stayed and fucked up the SEA people with their trash. There is nothing great but them.
 

kingrant

Alfrescian
Loyal
hahaha....u are just another emptry vessel.....mouth talk lumpar song only...
why you dare not take it outside the forum......scared to make a fool of yourself outside of SBF is it?????

You are really pathetic. Now keep on putting new conditions. What a loser! Nobody bully or put a gun to yr head to make you promise to fuck off when you are proven a twister and liar. yet here you are, refusing to go and acting so clingy!

Worse than a half fucked whore! Learn from KJ - dont make promises you cant keep.
 
Last edited:

eatshitndie

Alfrescian (Inf)
Asset
This is a good documentary that should explain some of your observations.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zaxJH_79ads

thanks! it's a very comprehensive and well-researched documentary.

california was also "filibustered" into independence from mexico and subsequently joined the union with willing mexican ranchers and secessionists who prefer the u.s. political system over that of mexico.

in the long run, mexico will win imo as they continue to flood the u.s. with both legal and illegal immigrants. at the end, it's a numbers game. when the u.s. is majority populated by underclass mexicans, the political landscape will change and shift towards the chicano homeland, where their original source of national pride rests. go anywhere in california, arizona, nevada, new mexico and texas these days, and you'll see mexican flags flying high on trucks, cars, homes and workplaces.
 
Top