Now that the hype from the PAP propaganda over SG50 is over, a little overlooked fact should be brought to light. The act of separating was so illegal that to all intents and purpose, the sovereign state of Singapore should never have been allowed to be created.
To understand why, we have to go back to 1962, and the occasion of the one and only national referendum ever held in Singapore. The referendum was to ask whether Singapore should merge with Malaysia. The exact wording of the referendum was as follows:
[FONT="]This only referendum in Singapore's history was for the merger with the Federation of Malaysia and the conditions for the merger. Singapore's political parties were permitted to campaign for the different alternatives starting from 14 August 1962. PAP stood for Alternative A, where Singapore would retain an autonomy over certain portfolios. Alternative B stipulated that those not born in Singapore would not automatically become citizens of Malaysia. SA, affiliated to Malaysia's ruling Alliance Party, stood for Alternative C, where Singapore would enter in terms no less than the North Borneo territories of Sabah and Sarawak, which were also merging into Malaysia. Criticizing the PAP government for not including an option to reject merger, Barisan, UPP, LSP, WP, UDP and PR called upon voters to cast blank votes. [/FONT]
As we all know, Alternative A won and the PAP got its wish for a merger with Malaysia.
[FONT="]Votes for merger: 414,959 (73.9%)[/FONT]
[FONT="]Blank votes: 144,077 (25.7%)[/FONT]
[FONT="]Uncertain votes: 2,523 (0.4%)[/FONT]
Now fast forward to 1965 and the differences, real or imagined between the state of Singapore and the federation of Malaysia was becoming too great. The decision was made to separate from Malaysia. But this time, the decision was made in complete secrecy. In fact, from the Singapore side, only Lee Kuan Yew, EW Barker (who actually drafted the separation papers), Mrs Lee, and Goh Keng Swee knew about the impending separation. It was so secret that even fellow cabinet ministers like Toh Chin Chye and Rajaratnam did not know and were kept in the dark. When they were suddenly presented with the separation documents to sign, they were so upset and incensed they refused to sign it initially.
The process of secret negotiations and unilateral and bilateral decision making between certain individuals in the Singapore cabinet and the Malaysian cabinet is 100% illegal. If a national referendum created the union and merger of Malaysia and Singapore, then likewise, logically and legally, a national referendum must also be called to determine a separation and ensuing creation of a new state. This second referendum was never called and on this, arguably, the most important decision in the history of Singapore, the public and voters were never consulted. If they were consulted on the union, why weren’t they consulted on the separation?
Essentially, let’s recognize it for what it is. Singapore was created illegally on the ego of one person. That would be Lee Kuan Yew. Admittedly, there were corresponding egos on the Malaysian side and this clash of personality resulted in midnight meetings, secret flights, cabinet ministers kept in the dark, etc. This is not a noble way to create a country such as Singapore, sneaking around like a thief. Why wouldn’t Lee Kuan Yew simply be honest and open with the people and say something like “Look, this merger is not working out. But I need to ask all of you whether we should separate or not. And we need a referendum for this”. After all, the PAP was elected on the basis of a a merger referendum with Malaysia. It only makes sense to ask again for a referendum on the separation. We don’t really care what the reasons are. Tun Abdul Razak can state them adequately for the Malaysian side and Lee Kuan Yew can state them eloquently for the Singapore side. On this, there can be no mistake. A national referendum should and must have been called for the purpose of separation. If the people of Singapore vote against separation, then too bad, Lee Kuan Yew should step down and let another Singapore leader work with the Malaysian federal govt to achieve our goals.
But the ego and hunger for power of this man knows no bounds. He knew that calling a referendum for separation only 3 years after one for merger would be political suicide for him. It would show that he miscalculated badly in the first place and therefore is unfit to lead Singapore. But by avoiding a separation referendum, he had managed to spin it into a case of the Malaysians being unreasonable and giving no choice. This is the first major example of his dictatorial and dishonest nature and an indication of the future direction that he would take Singapore. i.e. Just make decisions that favour himself with no forethought to democratic principals. All of this coming from a British trained lawyer, no less, who should have understood basic constitutional law.
Hence , we are where we are today. If you ever wonder why there is no real rule of law in Singapore, and why certain people can get away with certain things, look no further then this very first example.
Just my 2 cents.
To understand why, we have to go back to 1962, and the occasion of the one and only national referendum ever held in Singapore. The referendum was to ask whether Singapore should merge with Malaysia. The exact wording of the referendum was as follows:
[FONT="]
NATIONAL REFERENDUM 1962[/FONT]
NATIONAL REFERENDUM 1962[/FONT]
As we all know, Alternative A won and the PAP got its wish for a merger with Malaysia.
| [FONT="]RESULTS[/FONT] | |||
|
| ||
| [FONT="]
| |||
|
| ||
| [FONT="]9,422 (2.3%)[/FONT] | |||
|
| ||
| [FONT="]7,911 (1.9%)[/FONT] |
[FONT="]Blank votes: 144,077 (25.7%)[/FONT]
[FONT="]Uncertain votes: 2,523 (0.4%)[/FONT]
[FONT="]
[/FONT][FONT="][/FONT] |
The process of secret negotiations and unilateral and bilateral decision making between certain individuals in the Singapore cabinet and the Malaysian cabinet is 100% illegal. If a national referendum created the union and merger of Malaysia and Singapore, then likewise, logically and legally, a national referendum must also be called to determine a separation and ensuing creation of a new state. This second referendum was never called and on this, arguably, the most important decision in the history of Singapore, the public and voters were never consulted. If they were consulted on the union, why weren’t they consulted on the separation?
Essentially, let’s recognize it for what it is. Singapore was created illegally on the ego of one person. That would be Lee Kuan Yew. Admittedly, there were corresponding egos on the Malaysian side and this clash of personality resulted in midnight meetings, secret flights, cabinet ministers kept in the dark, etc. This is not a noble way to create a country such as Singapore, sneaking around like a thief. Why wouldn’t Lee Kuan Yew simply be honest and open with the people and say something like “Look, this merger is not working out. But I need to ask all of you whether we should separate or not. And we need a referendum for this”. After all, the PAP was elected on the basis of a a merger referendum with Malaysia. It only makes sense to ask again for a referendum on the separation. We don’t really care what the reasons are. Tun Abdul Razak can state them adequately for the Malaysian side and Lee Kuan Yew can state them eloquently for the Singapore side. On this, there can be no mistake. A national referendum should and must have been called for the purpose of separation. If the people of Singapore vote against separation, then too bad, Lee Kuan Yew should step down and let another Singapore leader work with the Malaysian federal govt to achieve our goals.
But the ego and hunger for power of this man knows no bounds. He knew that calling a referendum for separation only 3 years after one for merger would be political suicide for him. It would show that he miscalculated badly in the first place and therefore is unfit to lead Singapore. But by avoiding a separation referendum, he had managed to spin it into a case of the Malaysians being unreasonable and giving no choice. This is the first major example of his dictatorial and dishonest nature and an indication of the future direction that he would take Singapore. i.e. Just make decisions that favour himself with no forethought to democratic principals. All of this coming from a British trained lawyer, no less, who should have understood basic constitutional law.
Hence , we are where we are today. If you ever wonder why there is no real rule of law in Singapore, and why certain people can get away with certain things, look no further then this very first example.
Just my 2 cents.
