publichouse.sg

8 comments

• Comment Link Monday, 18 March 2013 02:12 posted by Anonymous

  Online Oharmacy store for beauty, health, wellness, personal care, click here http://live-meds.com/. We ship USA, UK, Australia. Generic Viagra Sildenafil Citrate pharmacy http://www.vip-pills.com/ cheap trial packs. Viagra vs Cialis, which is better for use? Buy legitimate generic cialis online medication in crniseadiy order.
• Comment Link Tuesday, 17 July 2012 08:47 posted by Lee Mong Wah

  As responsible self appointed journalists, we ought to be careful about context when examining quotations.
  
  LKY's words in your quotation were in my view not a claim to fame. He was making a clarion call to whoever his audience was then. The context is embodied in his last words in the quotation: "Never Fear".
  
  1965 was a time of great concern of survival for the general population. No less the political leadership.
  
  As the politician of the day, he was rallying the people in dire times.
  
  We have to give credit where credit is due.
  
  My lament is rather, that LKY's modern city, his metropolis he promised, which he delivered turned out to be one without a soul.... and I quote the late Mr Devan Nair:
  
  “Alas, we failed to foresee that human ends would come to be subverted for the greater glory of the material means, and our New Jerusalem would come to harbour a metallic soul with clanking heartbeats, behind a glittering technological façade”
• Comment Link Saturday, 07 July 2012 15:31 posted by george

  I think the crux of this issue that Andrew is getting at is the way the govt has been taking liberty with historical facts. His example being in fact only a small aspect of it. The truly worrying issue has been how the history of modern Singapore has been written, 'simplified' and rendered one dimensional by the govt - it being overwhelmingly what the PAP has done virtually single-handedly it would seem. My question is what about the rest of society and the general population. We or our forefathers are constantly and almost exclusively described as no more then mere inhabitants of slums, tenement housing, kampong folks etc. Yet, the irony was that it was from such inhabitants that the foundation of 'first' world Singapore had taken root. Without the blood sweat and tears of the older generations would lky and his PAP been able to do their stuffs. Without, National Service for example, would the govt been able to provide the outward sense of security that it needed to entice investors and multi-nationals to set up shop here? The people of Singapore had and are still rising to the occasion for the country, but the same cannot be said of the govt. It has gone on to become one of the riches in the world, but preferred to hamstring the people and through control and manipulation suppressed their mobility and human growth through schemes, such as the HDB housing, CPF minimum sum, etc. Such schemes are designed to ensure the its biggest fear that the people of Singapore would do so well that they are no longer dependent on the govt or feel beholden to it. For that is when the people who have found their own feet would be questioning and cross-examining every move and action of the govt. Something the lky and now his govt would not have. But, the time of reckoning will come, as NO MAN or WOMAN in history had been able to fool all of the people all of the time.
• Comment Link Friday, 06 July 2012 16:31 posted by Samuel

  Well, another amateur historian here, but we were a significant military target (or at least significant enough) for the Japanese to invade. Being a significant military target requires huge military bases which also entails significant civilian infrastructure. I regularly cycle past vestiges of such past glories and they are wonderful to behold.
  
  And while it is also true that the majority of the population stayed in cramped housing or kampongs, but there were municipal facilities and trappings of wealth. Motor bikes, bicycles, the simple life yes, but pretty good I imagine. Certainly, my parents weren't complaining about their lives back then. It might look squalid and arcane to us, but its because we come from a different generation with a very much different outlook.
  
  So no, not quite a mud-flap swamp, but like Andrew, I stand corrected if an informed source comes along.
• Comment Link Friday, 06 July 2012 16:06 posted by Andrew Loh

  Headscratch,
  
  We're talking about a 100 years or more ago.
• Comment Link Friday, 06 July 2012 15:19 posted by headscratch

  Why is this just posed as a question, Andrew? I am wondering why you have decided to reinvent the wheel by having the generally younger readers of your blog discuss this?
  
  Can't you call up an uncle or something and just ask? 1965 wasn't that long ago. Surely, you know someone who was alive in 1965 that can tell you what Singapore was like?
  
  Do we need a historian for this?
• Comment Link Friday, 06 July 2012 14:59 posted by Andrew Loh

  Hey Caleb,
  
  My own understanding is a layman one, based on simple calculations. When Mr Lee said what he said in 1965, it follows that prior to 1865 (100 years ago) Singapore was a "mud-flat swamp".
  
  Yet, from the marker on Jose Rizal, we see that by 1882 (or even earlier) Singapore was touted to have already been a "thriving British port-city".
  
  But the larger point is this: The ruling party has claimed that prior to its governance, Singapore was just a "fishing village" or "a mud-flat swamp". Yet, it is quite clear that the 100 years (at least) leading up to the advent of the PAP taking power, Singapore was already a thriving place, including economically.
  
  Questions about such a claim - that Singapore was nothing more than a "fishing village" - have been raised previously, especially online. So, it would be good if historians could help clarify the truth.
  
  Of course, not being a historian myself, I stand corrected.
• Comment Link Friday, 06 July 2012 14:07 posted by caleb

  i don't think there is a contradiction, andrew.
  
  let's establish some facts before i comment on the apparent contradiction:
  
  1. prior to the founding of modern singapore in 1819, singapore was indeed just a fishing village. no doubt there were trading activities in singapore, it would be difficult to label singapore as a thriving city then.
  2. singapore was indeed a bustling city when we gained independence in 1965. there are foreign (mainly british) documentaries showing footages of how singapore looked like in the early 1900s and yes, it is indeed a bustling city. in fact, i believe many of us would be surprised to be able to recognize many parts of the singapore river area in those pre-independence footages.
  3. so by inference, singapore should have been developed by the mid to late 1800s
  
  and now the apparent contradiction:
  1. when lee kuan yew spoke, in 1965, of the mudflat swamp, he specifically referred to a time frame in the past ("over 100 years ago") which makes sense if you do the math, which works out 146 years between the founding of modern singapore to our independence and specifically his speech.
  2. as for your historical excerpt you mentioned. i'm afraid i may not be able to confirm that since i've only referred to information in the early 1900s. but by extension, it should be reasonable to assume that singapore would have been a thriving port city by the mid to late 1800s
  
  and some food for thought: if the assumption is indeed true, i believe the british should instead be given the honour of bringing singapore from third world to (let's not say first world) second world status within the span of say half a century?
  
  it is an interesting discourse no less about our singapore history. thanks for your thoughtful and balanced articles. would love to speak to you some time.