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 some extent that the need to set up a Common Market was the most important reason for merger between Singapore and Malaya. At that time, Singapore was facing a declining entrepot trade and a growing population which required jobs. Furthermore, the Malayan government introduced import and export tariffs on goods traded between two countries. With this new tax, people of Singapore who wanted to trade with Malaya would earn less profit. The PAP government felt that a merger with Malaya would bring about rapid economic growth and a Common Market would support Singapore's new industries. Within this Common Market, goods could be bought and sold freely without being taxed. This would increase trade, expand industries and create more jobs. In addition, Malaya was not interested in the merger because they only wanted to work out the details of the Common Market after the signing of the Malaysia Agreement whereas Singapore wanted inclusion of Common Market terms in the Malaysia Agreement.

However, Singapore had been struggling for independence since 1945, the end of World War Two. The PAP government saw that Singapore's best hope for complete freedom was through a merger with Malaya. Singapore could ride on Malaya's independence. If Singapore merged with Malaya, British would be more willing to grant independence. The Malayan Prime Minister Tunku Abdul Rahman wanted the merger for security and not for economic reasons. Tunku felt that the communists might be too strong for the young PAP government to handle. Feared that Singapore might be used as a base to spread communist to Malaya. With a merger, the two countries could work together to curb communists' activities.

In conclusion, I do not think that the need to set up a Common Market was the most important reason for merger between Singapore and Malaya.

Singapore's struggle to achieve internal self-government in the period 1945-1959 had its costs. Was it worth it? Give at least two reasons to support.

I think Singapore's struggle in achieving internal self-government in the period 1945-1959 is worth it. Here are some reasons to support my stand:

The British was not able to see the needs of the people of Singapore. This resulted in the many riots in the 1950s, for example the Hock Lee Bus Riot and the Anti-National Service Riot. The neglecting of the people's interest sparked off these riots. And because many people died in these riots, the people of Singapore was able to see that the British was not capable of handling Singapore more clearly.

The internal self-government allows Singapore leaders to adopt legal practice that is compatible with Singapore’s cultural, social and economic requirements. In this regard, the economic success of Singapore can be attributed, to the wisdom of its leadership, its use of laws and the legal system to build a new society and entrench its economic survival while ensuring that the legal system is attuned to the needs and demands of the international community.

Therefore, it is worth it to struggle for internal self-government. Furthermore, it proved that the people of Singapore are in a better position to lead Singapore as compared to the British.

In your opinion, what could have prevented the Maria Hertogh riots in 1950? (give at least two suggestions)

The Maria Hertogh riot was a riot broke out over the custody battle of a 13-year old girl, Maria Bertha Hertogh. Maria was born in Java in 1937 to Dutch Catholic parents. When her parents were imprisoned during the Japanese Occupation, Maria came under the care of a Malay woman, Che Aminah and her husband. They brought her up as a Muslim and named her Nadra.


The riot broke out when the judge rejected the appeal for the custody of Maria by Che Aminah. This was also partly because the judge put Maria in the care of a Catholic convent in Thomson Road. Maria was a Muslim and had to bow and worship the Mother Mary. Pictures of Maria in the Catholic convent were taken and published all over the newspaper.

Another incident that happened before the riot which caused unhappiness in the Muslim community was in November 1950. In November 1950, the battle for custody continued. The court ruled that Maria should be returned to her natural parents. The judge announced that the Dutch law did not recognise Maria's marriage as she was under-aged and her natural father's consent was not obtained. The Muslim community felt that Muslim law was not respect. The community somewhat felt betrayed.


Finally, on 11 December 1950, the court sat to hear Maria's case. Large crowds gathered outside the court at the Padang to know the verdict. The judge rejected the appeal.

Feeling betrayed by what they saw as the British taking sides with the Dutch, the supporters of Aminah at the Padang started to riot. Any European and Eurasian in sight was attacked. Cars were overturned and burnt. Serious rioting erupted in the vicinity of Sultan Mosque, North Bridge and Jalan Besar roads. The riot was so serious that it continued for three days, a curfew was imposed for two weeks and troops were called in to maintain law and order.



In my opinion, there are several things can be done to prevent the riot. If the judge were to be more sensitive and tried to understand the Muslim law, the riot might not have happened. If necessary precautions were taken such as not allowing people or large crowds to gathered outside the court at Padang to know the verdict, the riot might again not have happened. If the judge were to know more about Maria's case, the riot might not have happened. If the judge had thought of the Muslims' feelings, the riot might not have happened. If the judge had prevented the reporters to take pictures of Maria in the Catholic convent and publish in the newspaper, the riot might not have happened.

If the judge were more sensitive and tried to understand the Muslim law, he would know that Muslims, like Christians or Catholics, believe that there is only one God. If he knew that, he should have known better than to put Maria in the care of a Catholic convent. By doing so, he angered the Muslim community and disrespected the Muslim law.

If necessary precautions were taken such as preventing large crowds to gather outside the court at the Padang to know the verdict, large groups of people would not be so angry that they started a riot. By preventing the large crowds' presence, perhaps the riot could have been prevented. This was because by the time, supporters of Aminah or the Muslim community knew the verdict and started a riot, the risk of the riot should have already been known or predicted by the British.


If the judge were to know more about Maria's case, he should have known that in the years Maria were under the care of Che Aminah, she was a Muslim not a Catholic. And that being under the care of another person or family for years, I believe one would not prefer to go back to one's natural parents. There are emotion ties already.


If the judge had thought of the Muslims' feelings, he should not have given a verdict so soon. He should know that he would be accused of siding with the Dutch if he were to give the custody of Maria to the Dutch parents, Maria's natural parents. This would cause unhappiness in the Muslim community.

If the judge had prevented the reporters to take pictures of Maria in the Catholic convent and publish in the newspaper, the Muslim community would not know what is actually happening in the convent and might not be the angry that a riot broke out. Maria's case was being covered in the newspaper a lot and of course the Muslim community wasn't happy about this.



In conclusion, I believe that the riot could have been prevented.

Did the Industrial Revolution affect the way people lived and worked in the 19th century for the better or the worse?
-explain your answer by providing examples

The Industrial Revolution (1750-1850) is the invention of new machines and the discovery of new sources of power.The Industrial Revolution affected the way people lived and worked in the 19th century,dramatically, for both the better and the worse.


Some of the examples of how the Industrial Revolution affected the way people lived and worked for the better are that as 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 there would be more jobs would be offered as a lot of work needs to be done and that goods could be bought at cheaper prices.

At the same time,railway trains and steamships were invented following the discovery of the steam-engine. People could travel longer distances in a shorter period of time to look for markets and raw materials. This made travelling easier and the people's lives easier.


There were also negative impact of the Industrial Revolution on the way people lived and worked in the 19th century. Some of the examples are that the jobs at factories were dangerous. If one is not careful when handling with the machines, one may lose his or her life.

People working in the factories were also poorly paid.

Not only that, the working conditions were often unsanitary, meaning dirty, and one would easily contract diseases.

As many jobs were offered, many children were also working, to make ends meet at home. Thus education suffered due to the command of work.

Not only education suffered, home life also suffered, because women were faced with the double burden of factory work followed by domestic chores and child care. Thus there was some worker oppositions to the proposals that child and women should not work.

Due the gases and smoke emitted by the factories, there was pollution of the environment, like air pollution and noise pollution. This harmed the health of the people living in the 19th century.

As many people were working, there was growth of material wealth. People spent more and more money on things that they did not really need, which were not daily necessities, wasting their hard-earned money.


With all these examples, I conclude that the Industrial Revolution affected the way people lived and worked in the 19th century for the worse because there are more examples supporting that the people's lives and work lives were affected for the worse.

You have to make a choice between Stamford Raffles' and Tan Tock Seng's statue,in front of the museum's entrance, which will be erected.

The National Museum has decided to erect a statue in front of its entrance.They have to make a choice between Stamford Raffles and Tan Tock Seng.If you were working for the museum, who will you choose, why?


If I were working for the museum, I would choose Tan Tock Seng over Stamford Raffles, erecting Tan Tock Seng's statue instead of Stamford Raffles'.

Reason being I think that though Raffles founded Singapore, Tan Tock Seng's actions also deserved his status to be situated in front of the National Museum's entrance. Being an immigrant from Melaka, his actions and contributions were really surprising!

Some of his 'surprising' actions or contributions were founding a pauper hospital in Pearl's Hill, paying funeral expenses of those who could not afford one and helping in settling problems and disputes in the Chinese community.

The pauper hospital in Pearl's Hill was founded for immigrants could seek medical help at little or no cost. As a lot of people could not afford medical help, they were left to die. Therefore the pauper hospital Tan Tock Seng set up was very important.

He paid the funeral expenses of people who he did not know as they could not afford one decent funeral. That's because he ,being an ardent Taoist, believed a decent funeral should be conducted for the dead. Not many people in the past would spend money for strangers' funerals, yet Tan Tock Seng did, and he paid not for one, but for many people.

All these shows that Tan Tock Seng is a man who did not ignore the suffering and plight of his unfortunate fellowmen. Raffles and the British did not do much for the well-being of the citizens.
Therefore I think that Tan Tock Seng's statue should be erected if I have to make a choice between Tan Tock Seng's and Stamford Raffles'.

Who really 'founded' Singapore?

I think that Stamford Raffles is the 'founder' of Singapore.If it was not for him,Singapore may still be a jungle that no one would set their eyes on.Stamford Raffles was the one who signed the treaty with Sultan Tengku Hussein,though William Farquhar came along with him,William Farquhar had never suggested anything with regard to the formation of a settlement at Singapore.Signing the treaty with Sultan Tengku Hussein encountered a few problems,which Stamford Raffles came up with solutions and tackled the problems.If Stamford Raffles were to give up when he encountered the problems,Singapore may not be what it is now.The problems was that the island was part of the Johor - Riau Sultanate under the control of Sultan Abdul Ruhman.Only the sultan could give permission for a British trading settlement but the Sultan was under control of the Dutch.Indirectly,the island was under control of the Dutch.Taking advantage of the succession dispute,Stamford Raffles recognised Tengku Hussein the Sultan in exchange of letting the Britsih build a settlement in the southern part of Singapore island.Slowly from a small settlement in the southern part of Singapore island,it became to grow to a busy town full of new settlers..