![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | On 9 August 2014, Singapore in Malaysia was linked from Reddit, a high-traffic website. (Traffic) All prior and subsequent edits to the article are noted in its revision history. |
"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)
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
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)
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:
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)
@Chipmunkdavis: If the claim is untrue, which other modern country became independent against its will? Banedon (talk) 19:18, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 12:24, 21 February 2023 (UTC)