How far do you agree that the need to set up a common market was the most important reason for merger between Singapore and Malaya?
I agree to an extent, that the need to set up a common market was the most important reason for merger between Singapore and Malaya.
It was thought to be able to bring about a rapid economic growth in Singapore and the PAP government felt that Singapore's survival as an independent state would be difficult due to the lack of natural resources, the declining of entrepot trade which was affecting it's economic growth, and a growing population which would have to be fed and fed with limited jobs.
The PAP government believed that if the merger occured, a common market would be set up to support Singapore's new industries. This way, goods could be bought and sold freely within the 2 countries without having to pay taxes and tariffs, trade in Singapore would increase, industries would expand, & new jobs could be offered.
By merging, the 2 countries could benefit as malaya would not require to Singapore when goods were transported from Singapore to Malaya.
All said.
Monday, September 24, 2007
Tuesday, August 28, 2007
TOPIC 5
Question:
Singapore's struggle to achieve internal self-government in the period 1945-1956 had its costs.
Was it worth it?
Give at least 2 reasons to support your stand.
Yes, I agree that Singapore's stuggle to achieve internal self-government was a worthy struggle.
The first reason.
As we have learnt in chapter 7 & 8 , several riots such as the Hock Lee Bus Riot and the Anti-National Service Riot occured then. These riots occured because the British were not able to satisfy the locals. Besides that, Singapore, a British colony then, was and is such a small country and nation.
Since such complications and disruption took place in a small nation like this, it can be ruled out that the British were not efficient in their ruling.
Now, Singapore is an independent nation, standing on it's own feet.
Therefore, I feel that it was worth all that struggle as it is now proven that Singapore is more efficient in ruling itself than compared to the British.
The Second reason.
Evidently, through all that struggle, the British were convinced to let Singapore be free from their rule and gain independence.
Singapore's struggle to achieve internal self-government in the period 1945-1956 had its costs.
Was it worth it?
Give at least 2 reasons to support your stand.
Yes, I agree that Singapore's stuggle to achieve internal self-government was a worthy struggle.
The first reason.
As we have learnt in chapter 7 & 8 , several riots such as the Hock Lee Bus Riot and the Anti-National Service Riot occured then. These riots occured because the British were not able to satisfy the locals. Besides that, Singapore, a British colony then, was and is such a small country and nation.
Since such complications and disruption took place in a small nation like this, it can be ruled out that the British were not efficient in their ruling.
Now, Singapore is an independent nation, standing on it's own feet.
Therefore, I feel that it was worth all that struggle as it is now proven that Singapore is more efficient in ruling itself than compared to the British.
The Second reason.
Evidently, through all that struggle, the British were convinced to let Singapore be free from their rule and gain independence.
Thursday, July 19, 2007
In Your opinion, What Could Have Prevented the Maria Hertogh Riots in 1950? Give at least 2 suggestions
Personally, in my opinion, the court should have not made the decision of putting Maria in the care of the Catholic convent in Thomson road without much consideration for religious beliefs. By doing so, the muslims felt it was a form of disrespectfulness. Othe than that, Maria Hertogh was afterall brought up by Che Aminah & her husband as a muslim. Thus, it was an insult to the muslims as Maria Hertogh was made to worship Virgin Mary and Jesus Christ.
Secondly, Reporters and photographers should have been prohibited from entering the convent to take pictures of Maria. This was very disrespectful to Maria, and it also hurt her emotionally. Due to these photos and news, anger was stirred up among the people.
If both of these situations were prevented, the chances of a riot breaking out would have been very low.
Secondly, Reporters and photographers should have been prohibited from entering the convent to take pictures of Maria. This was very disrespectful to Maria, and it also hurt her emotionally. Due to these photos and news, anger was stirred up among the people.
If both of these situations were prevented, the chances of a riot breaking out would have been very low.
Sunday, April 15, 2007
REFLECTION 3
Did the Industrial Revolution affect the way people lived and worked in the 19th century for the better or the worst?
Personally, I think that the Industrial Revolution affected the way people lived and worked in the 19th century for both the better and the worse.
It was successful in improving some of the people’s living condition. For instance, machines were located in factories & workers began to work in factories instead of working at home. The use of machines meant that the Europeans could produce their goods cheaply in great quantities and at a faster rate. Raw materials were needed to manufacture these goods.
The Europeans also needed new markets outside their own countries to sell their goods. They began to look to the East for raw materials and markets for their goods.
One place they turned to was Asia.
This also meant that more jobs would be offered as a lot of work was needed to be done and that goods could be bought at cheaper prices.
Therefore, ordinary working people had greater chances of being employed by factories. They were also better paid than those in agriculture. With more money, women had healthier babies and better food to eat.
Other than that, railway trains and steamships were invented, & there was also the discovery of the steam-engine. People could travel longer distances in a shorter period of time to look for markets and raw materials which apparently made travelling and the people's lives easier.
However, the Industrial revolution had also brought about static and often, cruelity, to the society. Harsh working conditions included child labour, dirty living conditions, and long hours of labour.
To elaborate, jobs at factories were dangerous.
If one was not careful when handling the machines, one may have lost his or her life.People working in the factories were also poorly paid.
Working conditions were often dirty, and one would easily contract diseases.As many jobs were offered, though the pay was not high, many children also also started working, to make ends meet at home which caused education to suffer due to the command of work.
Apart from all that, gases and smoke emitted by the factories, there was pollution of the environment. This harmed the health of the people living in the 19th century.
As for housing matters, poor people were likely to live in very small houses in cramped streets. They would share toilet facilities. Diseases spread through contaminated water supply and many people had died after drinking the water.
In conclusion, there are two different types of views to how the Industrial Revolution had affected the people's living conditions in the past.
It had brought happiness, improvements and even problems to the people and the world.
As for my view of perspective, with all the examples I have given of how the Industrial Revolution affected the way people lived and worked in the 19th century, I feel that the Industrial Revolution had more negative impact on the way people lived then because there is more evidence supporting my opinion, though it also had a postitive impact on some areas.
Personally, I think that the Industrial Revolution affected the way people lived and worked in the 19th century for both the better and the worse.
It was successful in improving some of the people’s living condition. For instance, machines were located in factories & workers began to work in factories instead of working at home. The use of machines meant that the Europeans could produce their goods cheaply in great quantities and at a faster rate. Raw materials were needed to manufacture these goods.
The Europeans also needed new markets outside their own countries to sell their goods. They began to look to the East for raw materials and markets for their goods.
One place they turned to was Asia.
This also meant that more jobs would be offered as a lot of work was needed to be done and that goods could be bought at cheaper prices.
Therefore, ordinary working people had greater chances of being employed by factories. They were also better paid than those in agriculture. With more money, women had healthier babies and better food to eat.
Other than that, railway trains and steamships were invented, & there was also the discovery of the steam-engine. People could travel longer distances in a shorter period of time to look for markets and raw materials which apparently made travelling and the people's lives easier.
However, the Industrial revolution had also brought about static and often, cruelity, to the society. Harsh working conditions included child labour, dirty living conditions, and long hours of labour.
To elaborate, jobs at factories were dangerous.
If one was not careful when handling the machines, one may have lost his or her life.People working in the factories were also poorly paid.
Working conditions were often dirty, and one would easily contract diseases.As many jobs were offered, though the pay was not high, many children also also started working, to make ends meet at home which caused education to suffer due to the command of work.
Apart from all that, gases and smoke emitted by the factories, there was pollution of the environment. This harmed the health of the people living in the 19th century.
As for housing matters, poor people were likely to live in very small houses in cramped streets. They would share toilet facilities. Diseases spread through contaminated water supply and many people had died after drinking the water.
In conclusion, there are two different types of views to how the Industrial Revolution had affected the people's living conditions in the past.
It had brought happiness, improvements and even problems to the people and the world.
As for my view of perspective, with all the examples I have given of how the Industrial Revolution affected the way people lived and worked in the 19th century, I feel that the Industrial Revolution had more negative impact on the way people lived then because there is more evidence supporting my opinion, though it also had a postitive impact on some areas.
Saturday, March 3, 2007
REFLECTIONS TWO.
The national museum has decided to erect a statue in front of its entrance. They have to choose between Stamford Raffles and Tan Tock Seng. If you were working for the museum, who would you choose, and why?
I think a statue of Tan Tock seng should be erected instead of Sir Stamford raffles. One reason is because there's already a statue of Stamford raffles erected outside the Victoria concert hall, while there is not a single statue of Tan Tock Seng despite the facts that he was a resident of Singapore and had contributed alot to Singapore as well.
Everyone keeps on thinking that without Raffles Singapore would not be the way it is today, which is true, but because of this, they tend to forget that Tan Tock Seng had contributed a lot to Singapore too.
Tan Tock Seng was a prosperous Singapore businessman of the early 1800s, known particularly for his generosity to the poor. He contributed tremendously to the construction of a new hospital for the indigent in 1844, which was then named Tan Tock Seng Hospital. He helped the poor and built new hospitals for the indigent willingly. He gave money to the sick and poor people and even paid for the funerals of the dead for the dead's poor family and relatives who could not afford it. After he died of an serious illness, his descendants continued his legacy.
I do agree that Raffles has contributed alot. But without Tan Tock Seng, on whom many people depended on for their lives, many people would have died. He was not a self-centered man and gave all his time and effort for the benefit of others. Therefore, I believe a statue of him should be erected as a form of respect and appreciation of his efforts.
This way, Singaporeans and tourists who come to Singapore would know more about what and how he contributed to Singapore.
@_@
I think a statue of Tan Tock seng should be erected instead of Sir Stamford raffles. One reason is because there's already a statue of Stamford raffles erected outside the Victoria concert hall, while there is not a single statue of Tan Tock Seng despite the facts that he was a resident of Singapore and had contributed alot to Singapore as well.
Everyone keeps on thinking that without Raffles Singapore would not be the way it is today, which is true, but because of this, they tend to forget that Tan Tock Seng had contributed a lot to Singapore too.
Tan Tock Seng was a prosperous Singapore businessman of the early 1800s, known particularly for his generosity to the poor. He contributed tremendously to the construction of a new hospital for the indigent in 1844, which was then named Tan Tock Seng Hospital. He helped the poor and built new hospitals for the indigent willingly. He gave money to the sick and poor people and even paid for the funerals of the dead for the dead's poor family and relatives who could not afford it. After he died of an serious illness, his descendants continued his legacy.
I do agree that Raffles has contributed alot. But without Tan Tock Seng, on whom many people depended on for their lives, many people would have died. He was not a self-centered man and gave all his time and effort for the benefit of others. Therefore, I believe a statue of him should be erected as a form of respect and appreciation of his efforts.
This way, Singaporeans and tourists who come to Singapore would know more about what and how he contributed to Singapore.
@_@
Friday, January 26, 2007
REFLECTIONS ONE.
If I were bias, to tell the truth, I'd choose raffles because he sounds hot.
But this is serious homework, which is the real and a big deal, so here goes.
A founder, is one who establishes something or formulates the basis for something, right?
And in my opinion, the founder of singapore is not raffles, farquhar or crawfurd.
Stamford Raffles founded it but there was already a sultanate, meaning someone had already founded Singapore. John Crawfurd only signed the treaty, but that does not mean he founded the island and as for William Farquhar, he only established Singapore and somehow made the country a success.
So basically, Raffles, Crawfurd and Farquhar, just did some 'modification' to Singapore.
Since its stated that Raffles founded the island later than Sang Nila Utama, and that someone before Sang Nila Utama had came to Singapore and established it into a port city, I/we can conclude that no one, not even Sang Nila Utama, founded Singapore.
And as John Crawfurd and William Farquhar basically did some 'modification' to Singapore, I can sum everything up and come up with my final conclusion that Singapore was founded by no none of them, and in fact, nobody.
BUT, I believe that everyone who's names were mentioned in my post, played a part in developing Singapore, and that without them, Singapore would not be the way it is today.
But this is serious homework, which is the real and a big deal, so here goes.
A founder, is one who establishes something or formulates the basis for something, right?
And in my opinion, the founder of singapore is not raffles, farquhar or crawfurd.
Stamford Raffles founded it but there was already a sultanate, meaning someone had already founded Singapore. John Crawfurd only signed the treaty, but that does not mean he founded the island and as for William Farquhar, he only established Singapore and somehow made the country a success.
So basically, Raffles, Crawfurd and Farquhar, just did some 'modification' to Singapore.
Since its stated that Raffles founded the island later than Sang Nila Utama, and that someone before Sang Nila Utama had came to Singapore and established it into a port city, I/we can conclude that no one, not even Sang Nila Utama, founded Singapore.
And as John Crawfurd and William Farquhar basically did some 'modification' to Singapore, I can sum everything up and come up with my final conclusion that Singapore was founded by no none of them, and in fact, nobody.
BUT, I believe that everyone who's names were mentioned in my post, played a part in developing Singapore, and that without them, Singapore would not be the way it is today.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)