Originally posted by wombat:
Remember your origins, Singapore
which one?
i don't think the ICJ is interested in ancient world history
according to the Sejarah Melayu so i would presume they're talking
about modern world history right?
so are they reminding us that Sg was founded in 1819 by an
opportunistic Tengku who collaborated with the Brits to counter his
brother's claim to the throne? never mind that it gradually led to
hs sultanate being split in 2 and never mind that the same family
later lost favour with the Brits and never exercised sovereign or
royal power again?
or are they reminding us that Sg was administered as a separate
colony after WW 2 since it was not and
never was administered from Peninsula Malaysia
before that?
or they fact that M'sia itself is a Colonial construct which never
existed as an independent political entity until 1958?
SINGAPORE ought to behave with decorum and submit its claim to
Pulau Batu Putih for adjudication by the International Court of
Justice, as Malaysia had long decided to do, instead of sending
naval vessels to the island.
we still don't know for sure who's playing delaying tactics on
this one... decorum is wasted on third world boors and roughnecks
anyway.
Secure in our legal rights over what appear to be mere rocks in
the sea, the Prime Minister has adamantly insisted that we, at
least, will not be playing that game. After all, does not
Singapore owe its independent sovereign status to the Malaysian
Parliament?
it is known that Sg sought merger to gain independence and to
revive its flagging entrepot trade at that time through a common
market with M'sia.
the common market NEVER materialised... we were
STILL left to fend for ourselves DESPITE the merger...
so are we to remember how we had been abandoned in all but name
despite the merger? that ironically, separation, upon hindsight,
gave us a more viable chance for survival than merger?
The moment it became part of the Federation of Malaysia in 1963,
the physical entity of Singapore existed only as that. Not until
August 1965 did Singapore, as an independent nation state, come
into being, and that only after an Act of our Parliament to this
end was passed.
like i said, Sg was governed as administrative capital of the
Straits Settlements, as Syonan To directly under the Japanese
military during the occupation and as a separate entity under the
British Military and as a separate colony with its own royal
charter after that until 1963.
all these status recognised Sg as being a distinct and separate
entity OUTSIDE the Malay Peninsula. the reason why
we were booted out was not merely because of petty political
differences and race riots, but that Sg was ill suited to merge
with M'sia in the first place!
M'sia recognition of such an obvious fact only made official what
has been the obvious case all the while!
Furthermore, given Malaysia's consistent stand against
Singapore's claim over Pulau Batu Putih, it is a fair assumption
that the creator of the claimant never intended these rocks to be a
part of the latter, its very own creation, in the first place.
bollocks! M'sia only made known its objections in 1979... they
were blissfully "bochup" up till then. And Sg is M'sias' "own
creation"??? please... that it stood alone and separate from M'sia
for the past 200 years at least is certain.
History, too, can do little to satisfy Singapore's hunger for
territoriality. From Siamese influence to British possession, it
had never really known total self-government.
that may be true, but neither did M'sia for much of modern
history... from Siamese influence (don't forget to send the Bunga
Emas...) to anarchy to British protection... wow... an illustrious
history indeed... it does no good to deny the legacy of British
indirect rule neighbour...
If it thinks adventurist foreign policies will change this, then
the city state is playing with fire. Its fine economy
notwithstanding, Singapore cannot afford to irk its neighbours.
i wonder who has more neighbours pissed off with it... Sg or
M'sia...
