Talk:Singapore in Malaysia

Lee Kuan Yew's birthday

"On 16 September 1963, which was also Lee Kuan Yew's 40th birthday, Singapore merged with the Federation of Malaya". What is the relevance of Lee Kuan Yew's birthday here? Seems superfluous to me, especially in the lead. -ryand 22:46, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

they are just saying. nothing wrong. Kaybhgoh (talk) 07:52, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Mmsia1.jpg

The image Image:Mmsia1.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
• That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --21:17, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Recent changes to the article

Hi, 103.227.140.22. I refer to the recent edits I made to the article, your reversion of them, and my restoration of the changes. I am not trying to "hide the real fact [sic]" as you claimed in your edit summary. The original sentence just doesn't make sense. Here is what it said:

The union, however, was unstable due to distrust and ideological differences between leaders of the State of Singapore and the federal government of Malaysia. Such issues resulted in frequent disagreement within politics, economic, financial, social policies and socioeconomic system that was Communism^[1] with majority were Singaporean Chinese. The conflict spread to the populace, resulting in major racial riots in 1964 in Singapore.

The sentence "Such issues resulted in frequent disagreement within politics, economic, financial, social policies and socioeconomic system that was Communism with majority were Singaporean Chinese" is not grammatical and simply does not make sense. Furthermore, it is not supported by the reference (Lim Siew Yea, Communalism and Communism at Singaporean Independence, Contemporary Postcolonial and Postimperial Literature in English, archived from the original on 21 August 2012, retrieved 9 August 2014) that was put in footnote 1. The reference notes that in the 1950s and 1960s the political loyalties of Singaporeans were based on ethnicity and, "fanned by the incendiary speeches of communalists aiming to stir up racial and religious feelings, gave rise to several major riots in which many people were killed and injured". In addition, "[i]n the 1950s, pro-communists and Chinese chauvinists enjoyed widespread support and loyalty within the Chinese community", and therefore "communism was another cause for anxiety for the newly formed government" (i.e., the government when Singapore became fully independent in 1965). The reference therefore:

• does not say that disagreements between the leaders of the State of Singapore and the Federal Government of Malaysia led to frequent disagreements in politics, "economic, financial, social policies" and the socioeconomic system; and
• does not say that the socioeconomic system of Singapore "was Communism".

The phrase "with majority were Singaporean Chinese" is not grammatical, and it is not clear how it connects with the rest of the sentence.

On the other hand, the text which I added is supported by the new reference (Road to Independence, Headlines, Lifelines, by AsiaOne, 1998, archived from the original on 13 October 2013, also referred to elsewhere in the article). The fact that there were racial tensions is clearly reflected in the following sentence: "There were also major racial riots that year [1964] involving the majority Chinese community and the Malay community in Singapore." — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 15:03, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Singapore as the only modern country to become independent against its will

diff in question

@Chipmunkdavis: If the claim is untrue, which other modern country became independent against its will? Banedon (talk) 19:18, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

Depends how you define modern I suppose, but most recently were the countries of Central Asia[1]. CMD (talk) 01:41, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

Does the source actually say the former USSR republics in Central Asia did not want to become independent? I can't find the sentence. The closest is footnote 1 which says "an overwhelming majority of the population in these republics voted to remain part of the Soviet Union", but the only such vote I can find is the 1991 Soviet Union referendum, and if one takes that result at face value then every non-boycotting Soviet republic didn't want to become independent, not just the Central Asian countries. Furthermore, the Soviet Union itself dissolved, which is not the same situation as Singapore since the rest of Malaysia remained a single country. Banedon (talk) 02:09, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

It is possibly more than just the Central Asian countries, I'm not saying they're the only ones. If you want more specific wording it's easy enough to find, eg. "Few peoples of the world have ever been forced to become independent nations. Yet that is precisely what happened to the five Central Asian republics...". Nothing will be exactly, like Singapore, as every situation is unique, but history is full of interesting cases. Anguilla revolted to return to British rule, Uruguay was given independence to be a buffer state, Luxembourg emerged out of a split inheritance, and probably more. CMD (talk) 02:39, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

Hmm, fair. Banedon (talk) 03:49, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Negaraku instrumental.ogg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 12:24, 21 February 2023 (UTC)