4/7/2015 The history of Singapore 101: part 1

http://limpehft.blogspot.sg/2013/02/the-history-of-singapore-101-part-1.html 1/15

24th February 2013

I have been totally appalled by the number of people in Singapore who actually

believed that Singapore was a fishing village in 1965 when the country became an

independent nation. My reader Cheerio Gobbler left a comment which read, "He (LKY)

still quite single-handedly shaped Singapore and transformed it from fishing village to sprawling

metropolis."

Cue palm to forehead. Groan. We're talking about the very basics of the history of

Singapore which would have been covered as part of the social studies curriculum in

primary school and certainly in secondary one history lessons in Singapore. Was

Cheerio Gobbler not educated in Singapore perhaps? When I went on to explain where

he was so wrong, that Singapore was certainly not a fishing village in the 1960s, he

went on to explain, "My history is bad, so you have me on that one. Poor history

notwithstanding, I do think he still played a big part in steering the ship."

[http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-kZEMdGliez8/USn95EZh-

1I/AAAAAAAAJIw/MiefVqKM0yU/s1600/singapore-+1965.jpg]

The history of Singapore 101: part 1

4/7/2015 The history of Singapore 101: part 1

http://limpehft.blogspot.sg/2013/02/the-history-of-singapore-101-part-1.html 2/15

Singapore was NOT a fishing village in 1965.

Well, it's not that I am trying to crucify Cheerio Gobbler for not being able to remember

the details of what he had learnt as part of his history education in Singapore (if indeed

he was educated in Singapore) - but surely if he is indeed Singaporean (his profile is

private and I don't know anything about him) and if his parents were born in Singapore,

then surely they and his grandparents would have been around Singapore in the year

1965. Did Cheerio Gobbler really know that little about how his parents and

grandparents spent their lives back in the 1960s? Did he really imagine his parents

growing up in "a fishing village"?

Indeed, Singapore wasn't a fishing village in 1965 when it first attained full

independence - it was already a thriving city of 1.89 million people already in 1965

[https://www.google.co.uk/publicdata/explore?

ds=d5bncppjof8f9_&met_y=sp_pop_totl&idim=country:SGP&dl=en&hl=en&q=population%20si

ngapore] . Agriculture (farming, fishing) had already experienced a sharp decline in

Singapore by 1965 as it had already became a highly urbanized modern city. It was by

no means a village - but one of the most exciting, modern and cosmopolitan cities in

Asia in 1965. Certainly if you were to compare Singapore in the 1960s to Singapore

today, of course it may seem backward - but is that a fair comparison? A far more

useful comparison would be to compare Singapore in 1965 to other regional cities like

Kuala Lumpur, Bangkok, Hong Kong, Perth and Taipei in 1965.

4/7/2015 The history of Singapore 101: part 1

http://limpehft.blogspot.sg/2013/02/the-history-of-singapore-101-part-1.html 3/15

[http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-70-

cjc9kJQI/UJQU7ePmxYI/AAAAAAAAE7Q/uENdZzlu_UI/s1600/singapore-history.jpg]Does this picture depict 1965 or 1865?

Mislabelling Singapore as a fishing village in 1965 is not only factually wrong, it also

gives the PAP way too much credit for the kind of economic transformation they have

delivered post-independence. What the PAP inherited in 1965 was a city that was

already had very good infrastructure - from a well run civil service (police, education,

hospitals etc), public utilities (water, electricity, drainage), a thriving port, a transport

network (an excellent national road network complete with a public transport system), to

a business community that had already achieved great success. This was a process

that started back in 1819 when Sir Stamford Raffles first landed in Singapore - that was

when the story started, not 1965! Driven by the success of entrepôt trade, the port of

Singapore was already one of the world's most prominent ports before WW2 - given its

strategic position at the southern most point of mainland Asia, making it a natural place

for ships to make a stop en route between East Asia (China, Japan, Korea, Hong Kong,

Taiwan, Vietnam, Philippines etc) and India, the Middle East, Africa, Europe and

beyond. The key factor was in fact the building of the Suez Canal in Egypt. Once the

Suez Canal opened in 1869, Singapore lay directly on the route from Europe to Asia. In

4/7/2015 The history of Singapore 101: part 1

http://limpehft.blogspot.sg/2013/02/the-history-of-singapore-101-part-1.html 4/15

the minds of the locals and the British Colonial Office, it had now become firmly

anchored as an integral part of the British colonial chain in Asia.

What you can deliver depends so much on what you are given - let me give you an

example. When I was serving national service, I gave private tuition to some students

[http://limpehft.blogspot.co.uk/2012/02/q-tuition-limpeh-part-3.html] (a very Singaporean

thing indeed). I had a whole range of students: from the RJC student who was

determined to get a distinction for his Economics 'S' paper to the poor kid from a

neighbourhood JC who was struggling to pass 'A' level Economics. Needless to say, I

had an easy time with that RJC student as we were having mostly philosophical debates

about economics - he didn't need help really, he just needed someone to challenge him

in a way to develop more innovative ways to approach the subject. Whereas with the

neighbourhood JC kid, I did what I could but to no avail. The RJC student did get his 'S'

paper distinction (he had brilliant results and went on to be a scholar) and the

neighbourhood JC kid failed his economics exam - what is the conclusion? Depending

on whom you ask, they will either tell you I was a great tuition teacher or an awful tuition

teacher. Do you know what made the difference in those two students? Was it the me?

[http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-

O9ujgAEUG2Q/UBB7FiLi0AI/AAAAAAAACmM/fvWqgwkiDpI/s1600/scholarship.jpg]

4/7/2015 The history of Singapore 101: part 1

http://limpehft.blogspot.sg/2013/02/the-history-of-singapore-101-part-1.html 5/15

My RJC tuition student went on to be a scholar.

My verdict on myself is that I am no miracle worker

[http://limpehft.blogspot.co.uk/2012/07/the-pointlessness-of-tuition-in.html] - give me a good

student with great potential and I don't need to do anything, he'll get the excellent

results with or without my help. Give me the struggling student and I don't have a magic

wand to turn the situation around. I was a tuition teacher, not a magician. By that token,

the PAP had inherited a city that was bursting with potential - like my super bright RJC

tuition student. How much credit could you give me and how much credit would I accord

to the student himself? Likewise, how much credit would you give to the PAP and how

much credit do Singaporeans in the 1960s, 1970s and 1980s deserve for this

economic transformation?

Let's run with this tuition analogy for now - my RJC tuition student was obviously smart,

but he had already been very well taught all the way from primary school, secondary

school right through to JC. He clearly had a very good economics teacher at RJC and I

was building on all the good work that had already been invested into this very well-

taught student. The neighbourhood JC kid on the other hand, didn't go to a good

secondary school unfortunately and a lot of the basic skills like a good grasp of

mathematics (in order to understand statistics) or a good grasp of English (in order to

write essays) were simply absent! At times, I felt as if I needed to give him maths and

English tuition as well, rather than just economics. I felt helpless - that sense of "how do

I even begin to help this guy? Where do I start?!"

4/7/2015 The history of Singapore 101: part 1

http://limpehft.blogspot.sg/2013/02/the-history-of-singapore-101-part-1.html 6/15

[http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-YXocRgO-

sNQ/UAYAt7rBGlI/AAAAAAAACkM/Nw1PerLr_k4/s1600/sad-man.gif]Aargh, where do I start?!

By that token, what the PAP inherited in 1965 was the equivalent of my RJC tuition

student - a country which already had a lot going for it, thanks to the former British

colonial administration. Sure they weren't perfect and you could criticize them for not

having done enough - but what they did leave behind was a city that had great

potential to blossom (like my RJC tuition student). Of course, in the spirit of post-

colonialism, amongst the patriotic cries of "Merdeka!" (freedom, in Malay) - few

Singaporeans were willing to thank the British for what they had left behind. Instead, it

was all to convenient for them to boast that this ex-colony was going to become richer

and more successful than the former colonial power (which is indeed the case today)

without acknowledging that the Singaporean success was built on the foundations left

behind by the British.

Hence I am advocating that Singaporeans should know their country's history if they

want to understand how we got to where we are and what kind of nation we want in the

future [http://limpehft.blogspot.co.uk/2013/02/was-hong-lim-protest-xenophobic.html] . In part

4/7/2015 The history of Singapore 101: part 1

http://limpehft.blogspot.sg/2013/02/the-history-of-singapore-101-part-1.html 7/15

2 of the history of Singapore 101, I shall be interviewing a 70 year old Singaporean

woman, talking to her about what her life was like in the period after WW2 and before

full independence came in 1965. She will be telling us personal stories about her

childhood, her struggles, her challenges and her vivid memories of growing up in

Singapore in that period before independence. I certainly hope my readers like Cheerio

Gobbler and other younger Singaporeans will read that interview as it will be a very

educational insight into pre-independence Singaporean history. Akan datang!!

[http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-

j8WQdGFKfgA/UJQSdIWJHiI/AAAAAAAAE7I/UfmrKtav2w0/s1600/singapore.jpg]

If you have any comments or memories from pre-independence Singapore, please feel

free to leave a comment below! Many thanks, kum siah, terima kasih.

Posted 24th February 2013 by Limpeh Foreign Talent

Labels: 1965, fishing village, history, nation building, nationality, natonal identity, PAP,pre-independence, Singapore, Singaporean

19 View comments

4/7/2015 The history of Singapore 101: part 1

http://limpehft.blogspot.sg/2013/02/the-history-of-singapore-101-part-1.html 8/15

Replies

Kevin Jang 24 February 2013 at 14:44

A lot of Singaporeans do not seem to actually know that fact that the PAP inheriteda rather good place or infrastructure to begin with, huh? Hahaha....I actually knowway too many people back in Singapore who singlehandedly hand all that credit toLee Kuan Yew on a plate by claiming that once he dies, Singapore will collapselol.....That seriously cracked me up. Now, we know why people are constantlyvoting for the PAP. I have one theory called the 'pumping on steroids' theory:basically, the votes that go to the PAP are like steroids to encourage the former PMand now-retired Minister Mentor to continue living. Hwaiting! lol.....ya.....

Reply

Limpeh Foreign Talent 24 February 2013 at 16:35

That is so Korean ... Hwaiting :)

Remember, Singapore fought hard to gain her independence from Britainin that period! In 1956, David Marshall (then Chief minister of colonialSingapore) led a mission to London to negotiate independence fromBritain and failed - he resigned in despair having failed in his mission.Allow me to cut & paste from wikipedia:

During the Merdeka Talks of 1956, the year before Malaya'sindependence, the British agreed to grant Singapore self-government overdomestic issues, while the British retained control of finance and themilitary. This seemed to satisfy Marshall initially, but the negotiationlater broke down when the British refused to turn over internal security tothe local government. The British felt that Marshall was not doing enoughto counter the threats of the communist insurgency and the MalayanCommunist Party (MCP) which had sparked the Malayan Emergency.The march towards independence was stalled and Marshall resigned in1956 making good on his earlier pledge that he would step down in thecase of failure.Another Labour Front leader Lim Yew Hock took over as Singapore'sChief Minister and continued the effort to push for independence. Limthen undertook harsh measures against the communists demonstratingthat his administration was willing to take a tough stance to safeguardinternal security. In the Chinese middle schools riots of 1956, some ninehundred people were arrested. Leading a negotiation delegation

4/7/2015 The history of Singapore 101: part 1

http://limpehft.blogspot.sg/2013/02/the-history-of-singapore-101-part-1.html 9/15

consisting of several Singapore political leaders from various parties, Lim

managed to convince the British to grant Singapore Merdeka byamending and revamping its Constitution in 1958 to allow for a fullyelected legislature which would form an internal government withcomplete autonomy over domestic affairs. This government was formedfollowing the Singapore general election of 1959, but ironically the LabourFront lost as Lim Yew Hock's harsh techniques had alienated largeportions of the electorate.

___________________________________________________________________

So when full independence was finally won in 1965 - Singapore wasready to look ahead to the future rather than thank the British for theinfrastructure they had inherited. The Brits didn't let Singapore have theirindependence without a fight - okay, sure it wasn't as bloody as the warfor independence fought in Vietnam against the French and in Indonesiaagainst the Dutch, but the tide was turning in Asia at that time towardsthe European imperial power and these Asian states were desperate forindependence. When they did get it, there was no mood or appetite to'thank' the British for the infrastructure they built.

This is why so few Singaporeans today even bother to want to considerthis aspect of the equation (ie. what we have to thank the British for)because our forefathers were not interested to even talk about it uponindependence in 1965 because of the prevailing anti-colonial sentiment inSE Asia at that time. But just because you don't wanna talk aboutsomething doesn't mean it isn't true.

gringo777 25 February 2013 at 01:18

I must add.. the Brits were in this not for just benevolent reasons.. surethey deserve recognition for what they built Singapore up to (setting asolid base for infrastructure, legal systems, education systems navalbase etc etc) but they were in it primarily for their own PROFIT in thespirit of that time and age (European colonialism). I would like to think ofit as a mutually profiting relationship that thankfully ended well and un-traumatically enough (Bearing in mind the terrible literally bloody messleft behind in French IndoChina). The moment they lost to the Japanesethe social contract of Colonial Master-Subjugated was torn up and 'sides,I just think it was never that pleasant being the lesser partner of that

4/7/2015 The history of Singapore 101: part 1

http://limpehft.blogspot.sg/2013/02/the-history-of-singapore-101-part-1.html 10/15

Reply

relationship.

Limpeh Foreign Talent 25 February 2013 at 11:37

Of course it wasn't benevolent - the same way the PAP are not entirelybenevolent either! Such is the nature of government - you do it becauseyou can get something out of it, being benevolent = charity, that's notgovernment, the two are very different indeed.

There were wars of independence fought in former colonies like Vietnam,Indonesia, Algeria etc which led to thousands dying for independence -so at least we had an amicable divorce from the Brits, like you said.

gringo777 27 February 2013 at 01:40

Yes, glad we all agree here. The issue I was meaning to put across wasthe express "thanking" towards the British - They came, they saw, theyconquered and they profited, and so did we from their presence here.Kinda view more as a business relationship than anything else, and theyadmittedly did a much better job than their fellow European colonialistswhich should be remembered and factored in when evaluating thedevelopment of modern Singapore.

I think the part of history most sorely lacking exposure in our education(deliberately?) were the crucial formative post-independence years - 1965onwards and the politics, economics and social structures of that time. Itis hardly ever taught in history lessons and remains a very hazy, grayperiod in the minds of many a young Singaporean.

Fox 24 February 2013 at 20:02

Actually, even LKY's memoirs don't claim that Singapore was a fishing village.

By 1959, when the PAP took over, Singapore had the third highest GDP per capitain Asia. It would be a serious mistake to think that Singapore was a shithole in1959. If Singapore were a fishing village in 1959, why would our forefathers have left

4/7/2015 The history of Singapore 101: part 1

http://limpehft.blogspot.sg/2013/02/the-history-of-singapore-101-part-1.html 11/15

Replies

their homeland (where there are fishing villages abound) to come to Singapore? It

does not compute...

Reply

Limpeh Foreign Talent 24 February 2013 at 20:07

This "fishing village" thing is a phrase that netizens have coined, ratherthan something anyone from the PAP actually claimed. But it beggarsbelief that some people actually do believe it is true - even though it wassomething that was covered in both social studies in primary school andin history in sec 1 and 2.

Fox 24 February 2013 at 22:03

True. I suspect that it's hyperbole that somehow turned into commonwisdom.

Kevin Jang 25 February 2013 at 02:18

Well, fox, if you look at the host of songs that primary school andsecondary school students in Singapore have been forced down theirthroats around the so-called National Day season, then you will realizethat some of these songs even reiterate that myth subconsciously ordirectly. "There was a time when people said Singapore won't make it,but we did." I mean, all that whiney nation-building false rhetoric aside,the truth is, it is largely a myth people have chosen to reinforce over andover again even after being educated about it. There is that idea thatSingapore was 'in the slums' and so on prior to the PAP's takeover as aformer opposition party after the Barisan Socialis withdrew in presencefrom Singapore (at least as far as I know). Many people I know--of mygeneration in the 30's--actually believe in this whether they are anti- orpro-PAP, and it does not seem that much more logical. I just guess thatwhen you are used to one version of the story, even if it is not true, it willbecome your 'truth'.

Limpeh Foreign Talent 25 February 2013 at 11:41

4/7/2015 The history of Singapore 101: part 1

http://limpehft.blogspot.sg/2013/02/the-history-of-singapore-101-part-1.html 12/15

Reply

Replies

Yes - slums ... I've heard people use that word. The fact is, there wererich people and there were poorer people and there was everything inbetween lah. Given that Singapore was then recovering after WW2, theaverage person was poorer - but it was not as if it was doomed to failure

without the PAP. Even most European countries struggled in the postwar years with rebuilding their economies after WW2 and Singaporestruggled just like all the other countries affected by WW2.

I think you will like part 2 of this series :) Akan datang :)

muchopunk 25 February 2013 at 01:05

For god's sake, even before 1965, Singapore had a very vibrant AGRICULTURE andFISH, PIG rearing business that rivaled that of Indonesia and Malaysia, in fact, wehad enough of this stuff to feed most of Singapore at that time and then export someif the farmers were business savvy enough. Anybody who took History in year 1 ofJC/CI before the the H1/H2 system came along can tell you that shit in a minute ifthey paid attention in class. I don't know what planet all these people come from,but 1 they don't read very much. Number 2, the world seems like a static placewhere there can only be one perspective of history. I would really like to see themlive/work/exist in the Korean peninsular where you have different versions ofJapanese/North/South Korean/Mainland Chinese and Taiwanese versions of whathappened prior to and during the war. It will blow their mind. I think they neverunderstood that winners will write history but it's not the only history.

Okay. Now I can go back and read the post in full beyond the opening line.

Reply

akikonomu 25 February 2013 at 05:19

Factories. FORD was in Singapore decades before independence.

Reply

4/7/2015 The history of Singapore 101: part 1

http://limpehft.blogspot.sg/2013/02/the-history-of-singapore-101-part-1.html 13/15

Reply

Replies

Limpeh Foreign Talent 25 February 2013 at 11:42

Yes indeed!

oldsingapore 25 February 2013 at 12:23

It is precisely for this reason that I started a blog on old Singapore (mostly 19thcentury). Singapore was among the world's top 10 cities even in the 1890s. I don'tknow how this "fishing village" nonsense got started. Singaporeans should realizethat this city has a glorious and colorful heritage about 200 years old and feel proudof it.

Reply

Limpeh Foreign Talent 25 February 2013 at 12:30

Yes, I have seen your blog and I do enjoy it - it is brilliant work you aredoing, keep it up! Thanks for producing such a great blog.

I am totally appalled at this whole "fishing village" idiocy - but it is amisguided notion that does have political implications. I am glad that asbloggers we can use our influence to redress that balance.

XxtoweringxX 25 February 2013 at 14:05

By the way, this youtube video below show what Singapore looked like in1957. It sure doesn't look like a fishing village to me. The PAP gavethemselves too much credit.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nw7toyYrqjs

Limpeh Foreign Talent 25 February 2013 at 14:19

Thanks for the link for the vid.

4/7/2015 The history of Singapore 101: part 1

http://limpehft.blogspot.sg/2013/02/the-history-of-singapore-101-part-1.html 14/15

Reply

Replies

Reply

To be fair, it is not entirely the PAP giving themselves credit - it's salahSingaporeans giving the PAP this credit based on a very misguided viewof Singapore's history! Fishing village, aiyoh.

Pauline Lee 25 March 2015 at 00:08

Relatively, in 1965, Singapore had all the basic infrastructure but civil issues weremassive. I'm sure everyone knows that.

Reply

Daniel Kevlar 1 April 2015 at 12:45

You'd be surprised. After the passing of the Dictator, the propagandamachine has been preaching the notion that the PAP raised Singaporefrom a 'sleepy fishing village' in 1965 to a metropolis.

4/7/2015 The history of Singapore 101: part 1

http://limpehft.blogspot.sg/2013/02/the-history-of-singapore-101-part-1.html 15/15

Enter your comment...

Comment as: Google Account

Publish Preview