The 1965 separation of Singapore from Malaysia and what the modern elitist society can learn from our founding fathers

Those who forget history are doomed to repeat it — George Santayana

Snuggling comfortably along Waterloo Street, a quaint TCM shop effectively tucks itself away from curious, wandering eyes. In the professedly midday heat, a young boy who goes by the name Ah Seng, can be seen kicking his rattan ball while his Pa glares down on the small bronze steelyard that holds some of the most precious herbs in the store.

“WHEREAS it is the inalienable right of a people to be free and independent…” Ah Seng’s father puts down the measuring instrument and turns the radio’s volume knob. He calls for his son who then came running in. The little rascal, drenched in his sweat, reaches for a bottle of Vitasoy before managing to salvage a seating space amongst the bags of dried plants strewn across the floor.

“Now, I, LEE KUAN YEW, Prime Minister of Singapore, DO HEREBY PROCLAIM AND DECLARE, on behalf of the people and the Government of Singapore, that as from today, the ninth day of August in the year one thousand nine hundred and sixty-five, Singapore shall be forever a sovereign democratic and independent nation, founded upon the principles of liberty and justice and ever seeking the welfare and happiness of her people in a more just and equal society.”

When the Proclamation of Independence was read over the radio 56 years ago, the nation held its breath. Some understood and foresaw the turbulent times ahead. They had their doubts if Singapore should ever be an independent state, let alone be independent forever! While others simply could not fathom out the extensive legal jargons used by the announcer. Liberty? Is that the same meaning as freedom?

The 1964 Malaysian General Election and the outbreak of communal riots

The year was 1964 and the Malaysian General Election was well underway. The People’s Action Party (PAP) sent its own token team of candidates. Their objective? To establish itself as a national Malaysian party to fight the anti-Malaysian parties so as to ensure the success of the Federation of Malaysia.

Running their own election on the mainland of Singapore, large crowds gathered at the rowdy, lively rallies but when the results were read, the PAP won only one seat out of the nine parliamentary seats they contested for.

Tunku Abdul Rahman, then the Malaysian Prime Minister, viewed PAP’s participation in the general election as a political challenge and an attempt by the men in white to intervene in federal politics. When the winning PAP candidate, Devan Nair, with the rest of the Singapore representatives were sworn into the Malaysian Parliament, they were branded as politicians of the opposition.

Mr Lee Kuan Yew, then the Prime Minister of Singapore, was even offered the post of leader of the position which he subsequently declined. In his first post-election speech, he highlighted that Kuala Lumpur’s communal approach to politics might not be conducive in the long-term for promoting racial unity.

Sure enough, the United Malays National Organisation (UMNO) Party launched a smear campaign against the PAP, accusing Mr Lee and his government of mistreating the Malays in Singapore, and depriving them of the special rights enjoyed by their counterparts in Malaysia. The vehement language used in Malaysian newspapers to stir up sentiments within the Malay community in Singapore created a tense atmosphere across the different communities.

Tongue, when used as a weapon, is poisonous enough to kill. Discontent grew into enmity between the different races in Singapore which led to the eventual racial riots on 21 July and 2 September 1964, leaving a total of 23 people dead and 454 others suffering severe injuries.

No economic advantage in merger: Dr Goh Keng Swee

Initially, the PAP saw the merger as integral to Singapore’s economic survival. Not only were we lacking in natural resources, facing a declining entrepot trade further affirms the fact that Singapore needed the Malayan hinterland to provide for a bigger common market for its industries to create jobs and generate growth.

25 November 1964: Malaysian Finance Minister Tan Siew Sin announced the Malaysian budget which aimed to raise M$147 million to redress the federal deficit of M$543 million. This “incongruous” arrangement, as described by Dr Goh, seeked to mandate a 39.8 percent contribution from Singapore through the payment of new taxes. At that point, Singapore’s population was just 17 percent of the total population of Malaysia.

The new taxes came in the form of a turnover tax, a payroll tax and taxes on diesel and sugar.

By applying taxes on diesel and sugar, PM Lee Kuan Yew berated the federal government for squeezing the poor. He also lambasted Tan for not consulting his government before rolling out these implementations.

In response, the Malaysian finance minister threatened to increase Singapore’s revenue contribution to the federal government from 40 to 60 percent.

In a Oral History, Dr Goh Keng Swee held a conversation with a World Bank expert who who was advising Kuala Lumpur and Singapore on the common market. Dr Goh asked: “Suppose [the Malaysian Finance Minister Tan Siew Sin] does not play the game and the common market does not get off the ground — what happens?”

The expert answered judiciously: “In that event, Mr Minister, it’s not the common market which should be in danger; the whole concept of Malaysia would be in danger.”

August 9 1965: How Singapore broke away from a “One Country, Two Systems” fate

By December 1964, the Malaysian Prime Minister Tunku Abdul Rahman remarked: “If the politicians of various colours and tinges and flashes in Singapore disagree with me, the only solution is a breakaway,”

In the Tunku’s definition of “breakaway”, he meant that Singapore was to be “in partnership, independent, but part of the peninsula”. The Singapore government is allowed to possess all the powers it had in the years of self-government between 1959 and 1963 prior to joining Malaysia. However, Kuala Lumpur would manage the defence and external relations of Singapore. Furthermore, Singapore citizens are barred from joining politics outside of the mainland and likewise, Malaysian citizens would withdraw from political activity on the island. This proposal, however, was binned in the end for three reasons.

One, the Tunku’s intention of kicking Singapore out of the Malaysian Parliament was made clear as day. Despite this, he desired Singapore to fork out monetary contributions towards the cost of Malaysian defence, with a portion of Singapore’s tax revenue going to Kuala Lumpur.

“There could be no taxation without representation. We cannot become a colony in Malaysia,” Mr Lee addressed the Tunku.

Two, while Kuala Lumpur was adamant in its position to remove Singapore from Malaysian politics, it was not prepared for the equal exchange: Malaysia out of Singapore politics. KL’s condition of asking the PAP to stay out of the Malay world, not only in Malaysia but even in Singapore itself, and leaving it entirely to UMNO to deal with the Malays, even in Singapore, was fiercely contested by the PAP.

Lastly, the meddling by the British who caught hold of what was happening scuttled everything. The Indonesia-Malaysia confrontation was a violent conflict from 1963 to 1966 that stemmed from Indonesia’s opposition to the creation of Malaysia. The British, who were defending Malaysia against the Indonesians, were not prepared to see their rear disintegrate while they defended the frontier. They announced that they yearned for a national government with the PAP in the federal cabinet.

On the fateful day of August 9 1965, Singapore announced its separation from Malaysia to become an independent and sovereign state.

In the well-remembered press conference held on the day of separation, Mr Lee Kuan Yew said: “You see, this is a moment of … everytime we look back on this moment when we signed this agreement which severed Singapore from Malaysia, it will be a moment of anguish. For me, it is a moment of anguish because all my life…. you see, the whole of my adult life…. I have believed in Merger and the unity of these two territories. You know, it’s a people, connected by geography, economics, and ties of kinship….. Would you mind if we stop for a while.”

Years after separation: Malaysia expressed regrets

Indeed, a few years after the separation, both Tunku Abduh Rahman and Tun Razak were to express their regrets for letting Singapore go. In the eyes of the Malaysians, the separation was a cold abandonment of its own brothers, especially when their own Malay counterparts living in Singapore were cruelly cut off.

The million dollar question: does Malaysia still regret its decision even till today? The best way to explain this is by using an analogy I saw on Quora.com. Imagine a girl breaking up with her boyfriend and in a few years, he becomes a rich celebrity.

Youngsters must learn from the audacity displayed by our founding fathers 56 years ago

“For if Singaporeans had allowed themselves to be cowed, we might still have been offered ‘one country, two systems’ as late as August 1965. Fortunately, our forefathers were a pride of lions led by lions.” — Mr Janadas Devan, son of the late Mr Devan Nair.

56 years ago, we were gazillions of miles away from what we are today. Our forefathers did not sit around a crystal ball waiting for the future of Singapore to be spelled to them.

In fact, who was to know that after losing Malaysia as our hinterland, we used the world as our hinterland instead. That we became specialists in a plethora of fields, that MNCS found their footholds on our land, that we, the tiny dot on a world map, was capable of what we thought we could not?

The essence that glowed brilliantly in our forefather’s fighting spirit was pure audacity.

Then British Prime Minister, Harold Wilson, applauded Mr Lee Kuan Yew’s audacity. He said: “After the idea of a looser confederation had floundered in February 1965, Mr Lee had adopted a strategy fraught with enormous risk to himself and his colleagues, including the possibility he might have been bumped off.” To those who do not understand the phrase “bumped off”, it means getting assassinated.

56 years on, Singapore, like a phoenix rising from its ashes, rebirthed into the richest and most powerful country in Southeast Asia.

As Singapore leaves its struggling history of political, social and economic instability behind, there will come a time when our younger lions will unfortunately recline in this clover built on the hardships of our ancestors believing that vulnerabilities are lies and myths. And when this time comes, I urge them to read our history.

Back in Waterloo Street…

Ah Seng knew that he had just bore witness to the most historical day of not only his country, but his life. A wave of immense pride sweeps over him as his Pa’s switches off the radio.

“Seng, I want you to remember this day by heart. Learn that even after facing a rejection, we do not go on our knees. We take rejection in our stride and strive to be better, no, we strive to be the best. If you believe in yourself, you will be unstoppable.”

As Ah Seng prepares to leave, he picks up his rattan ball and shouts over his shoulder.

“Pa, I will become the best soccer player and represent SIN-GA-PORE one day!”