{"id":68,"date":"2020-03-22T03:47:06","date_gmt":"2020-03-22T03:47:06","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/review.imagined.my\/wordpress-5.3.2\/wordpress\/?p=68"},"modified":"2020-07-30T13:57:28","modified_gmt":"2020-07-30T13:57:28","slug":"the-invention-of-the-singapore-separation-story","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/review.imagined.my\/?p=68","title":{"rendered":"The Invention of the Singapore Separation Story"},"content":{"rendered":"\n<iframe loading=\"lazy\" src=\"https:\/\/drive.google.com\/file\/d\/1IB4j8CVwWHb-X8dp4-F_sTfPDcbjpfm2\/preview\" width=\"640\" height=\"480\"><\/iframe>\n\n\n\n<div class=\"donation\">\n<h3><ion-icon name=\"card-outline\" size=\"large\"><\/ion-icon> Enjoyed this article? Want to tip the author?<\/h3>\nFollow the instructions below:\n<br><br>\nStep 1: Bank in to our account Persatuan Sejarah Anak Muda, Maybank, 512316642160\n<br><br>\nStep 2: In the reference section name the author you&#8217;re tipping.\n<br><br>\nStep 3: Please email details of your tip to jeremy@imagined.my\n<br><br>\nThanks!\n<\/div>\n\n\n\n<p><\/p>\n\n\n\n <meta name='description' content='Introduction: Another Country\nIn my grandmother\u2019s house in Muar, Johor, there is a green clock atop the TV console that screams 1970s kitsch. It is a much beloved item in her home, prized because it was bought in Singpore many years ago for a princely sum. To her generation, Singapore was the Big Town; where people from Muar went down once a year to do shopping for Hari Raya, Deepavali or Chinese New Year; where the menfolk went to do business; where goods from chicken wire to pianos come from. But to me that strange green clock was a curious relic from another world; for to me, Singapore was a foreign country far far away where everything costs twice as much. \nBut it was not always like this: Singapore was the de facto capital of Malaya for nearly 150 years. Our newspapers were printed there, our children went to university there. My great-granduncle had a tinsmith workshop in Payar Lebar that bore the same name as ours\u2019 in Muar: Chop Nam Hoe. The British kept the administration of Singapore separate from the rest of Malaya for multiple reasons, too numerous to discuss here, but primarily because they saw that it was easier to administer Malaya via the Sultans and their respective governments rather than taking direct control. Singapore was their safe base, from which directions to the governments of the other Straits Settlements came, but it was by no means foreign ground to the Malayans: the Causeway was open for public use without the mad hassle of the customs checkpoint of today; and for many years the Johore royal family made Telok Belangah their base, preferring the modern conveniences of the British colony over their ancestral seat in the windswept little village of Johor Lama on the east coast. \nIn 1965, the most drastic political change to befall Malaya since the Pangkor Treaty took place without much fanfare. On the 9th of August in that year, a city that was the cultural, economic, medical and educational hub for 9 million people was suddenly cut off from 7 million of them. Not because of war or disaster, but because of the short-sighted selfishness of a few Malayan politicians, and Singaporean cunning. Thus was the state of Singapore born. \nBut being a state is not enough; in order to become a fully-functioning nation, Singaporean nationhood had to be achieved. But it simply wasn\u2019t there; it had to be manufactured out of strife. \n\nPart 1: The Need for Struggle \nSingapore in 1965 was still a quintessential Malayan city, complete with Padang, Anglican Cathedral, Malay kampungs and Chinese shophouses. A political separation was easily achieved with the creation of a border, but a separation of identities would be a gargantuan task. The Courts of Malaya and Singapore were still fused; Singapore still participated in the Malaysia Cup (they were returning as champions for the 19th time that year); and my grandmother was still running around Gu Chia Chwi with my infant mother in tow doing the Chinese New Year shopping. To the fledgling Singaporean state, it was imperative that a unique and distinct Singapore identity be achieved. \n Upon achieving independence, the new state of Singapore was quick to de-Malayanise, putting more focus on its colonial identity over its Malayan identity, emphasising Raffles over the old Johore sultans and the English language over Malay.  Today, every August on the 9th, Singaporeans will gather together as one nation to celebrate not being part of Malaysia. And since 1965, scholars and historians on both sides of the Causeway have spent hours trying to argue whether it was an expulsion or a breakaway until they are blue in the face.   \nNoordin Sopiee\u2019s thorough examination of the events leading up to Singapore\u2019s Separation was most compelling. Reading his seminal thesis From Malayan Union to Singapore Separation: Political Unification in the Malaysia Region, 1946-1965 with Dennis Bloodworth\u2019s The Tiger and the Trojan Horse (both of which we will examine in detail further on) we see a very clear picture of the true Tok Dalang in this charade, and what his game was. \nI speak of no other than that grandmaster of Asian politics, good ole\u2019 Harry Lee Kuan Yew. In order to invent Singapore the nation, Singapore the state had to have a perceived struggle. Struggle is always capable of bringing together a myriad of peoples to identify as a singular persecuted group.  \n\nPart 2: Engineering Expulsion\nOn a balmy evening in April 1961, at the opening of the brand new UMNO House on Changi Road, the Tunku gave a speech where he expressed doubt and reluctance at allowing Singapore into Malaysia because of what he deemed to be \u201cthe divisive and extremist politics of Singapore\u2019s parties\u201d which may cause trouble and bloodshed in Malaysia. Every major Singaporean politician spouted Merger 24\/7, and the Straits Times editorial cartoonist Peng was certainly helpful in forming the public\u2019s opinion that merger would lead stability while isolation (the term \u201cindependence\u201d was hardly used prior to 1964, but \u201cisolation\u201d instead) would lead to chaos. The ones against Merger were the Leftists in the PAP (many of whom would later splinter out into the Barisan Sosialis) and the Singaporean trade unions. Lee Kuan Yew even went as far as to threaten the Opposition by reminding them that despite the referendum, the PAP Government was \u201clegally and constitutionally entitled to go through with merger without a referendum\u201d. Thus, the moment Singapore and Malaya agreed to form Malaysia, Lee Kuan Yew and the Alliance agreed that one of the two pre-conditions for the creation of Malaysia was the mass arrest of Singapore\u2019s left-wing groups, which they perceived as communist breeding grounds: in February 1963, 7 months before the formation of Malaysia, Operation Cold Store kicked into action, wiping out the entire Barisan Sosialis leadership using Malayan muscle (it is to be noted that Lee Kuan Yew was calling the shots: he assembled the arrest list, and had even horrified the Tunku by including in his list not only members of Singapore\u2019s Barisan Sosialis as initially agreed but also members of the United People\u2019s Party and Workers Party. The first Operation Cold Store attempt had failed because Lee had included the names of several Malayan MPs that opposed Merger, and the Tunku had put his foot down).\n Before joining Malaysia, Singapore had wanted in on a Common Market comprising Malaya and the Borneo states; they only asked for autonomy in matters of labour, broadcasting and education, which was granted in Annex A (Article 60) and Annex K of the Malaysia Act 1963. Yet upon joining, the Singaporean government began making demands and doing things that they knew would anger the Alliance and the Malays, egging them on to expel Singapore, such as:\n\nThe loud and hostile haranguing for a \u201cMalaysian Malaysia\u201d, this well known spat devolved into a chaotic dichotomy of whether the Malays were indigenous to Malaya or merely pendatangs like the Chinese and Indians;\nInstituting a new town plan that would see the destruction of the Malay enclave of Kampung Rochor;\nDemanding the reduction of Singapore\u2019s contribution to the Federal finance from 40 to 30 cent while wanting in on a Common Market (the Alliance was mooting an increase for allowing participation);\nRefusing to halt trade with South Africa in accordance with Malaysia\u2019s apartheid boycott;\nObjecting to Malaysia\u2019s insistence that the Bank of China branch in Singapore be closed in accordance with Malaysia\u2019s boycott of communist countries;\nOf course, it did not help that Lee Kuan Yew\u2019s attitude and choice of words were wont to attract the ire and anger of Malays from both side of the Causeway.  \n\nPart 3: Formenting Rebellion\nOn 12 July 1964, SUMNO (the Singaporean branch of UMNO) organised a convention at the New Star cinema in Pasir Panjang to discuss the problems faced by the Malays in Singapore. The convention was attended by representatives from Singaporean Malay Muslim organisations. Syed Ja\u2019afar Albar, the Secretary General of UMNO, condemned Lee Kuan Yew and the PAP for oppressing the Malays of Singapore and for refusing to recognise the position of the Malay race in Malaysia. A Malay boycott of an upcoming Malay town hall meeting sponsored by the PAP on the 19th of July 1964 was called. Instead, a Singapore Malays Action Committee (SMAC) was formed to be the sole Malay representative body dealing with the PAP government. Then, at the Malay town hall meeting of 19 July 1964 at Singapore\u2019s Victoria Theatre, Lee defended the government\u2019s employment, housing and education policies for the Malays and made it clear that the government would not grant Malays special privileges such as quotas for jobs. This outraged the attendees, many of whom considered the meeting to be a grave insult. A few days later, leaflets supposedly authored by the Singapore Malayan National Committee began to circulate, spreading rumours of Chinese killing Malays. On the 21st of July 1964, during the Mawlidur Rasul celebration honouring the birthday of the Prophet Muhamad, someone threw a glass bottle at the procession on the Padang, sparking off \nthe 1964 Singapore Racial Riots. By the end of the day, 23 people lay dead in the streets of Singapore. \nFollowing a repeat of such communal violence in September, the Singapore government began to be wary of being part of a Malay-majority nation. By December 1964, the Singaporean government were already dropping hints and threats of separation and suggesting a looser confederation. The main points of contention, besides the obvious question of Malay rights, was that the Singaporean PAP wanted to be a part of the central government that ruled Malaysia, whilst the Malaysian government wanted to limit the PAP to ruling Singapore, seeing Singapore as only one of the other 14 states. The turning point was on the 5th of May 1965, when Lee Kuan Yew made the now-famous statement that none of the three main races in Malaysia were truly native as all had migrated to Malaysia less than 1000 years ago (a clear step-up as Lee had just referred to the Malays as the indigenous people of Malaysia in a speech in New Zealand on the 15th of March 1965), hence the need for a Malaysian Malaysia. \nOn the 9th of May 1965, amidst extreme \u201cverbal overkill by both sides\u201d, Lee and the PAP formed the Malaysian Solidarity Convention. This was seen by many as an open act of rebellion, being Malaysia\u2019s first serious Opposition bloc since elections began in 1952. This was a coalition of Malayan parties led by the Singaporean PAP (much akin to the more recent Pakatan Rakyat) with the sole aim of winning the coming 1969 elections \u201cthe majority of seats in Malaysia in order to form a government\u201d that would realise a Malaysian Malaysia and dismantle Malay rights and privileges. Its members were the United Democratic Party (a largely Chinese party formed by former MCA members and led by Lim Chong Eu), the Sarawak United Peoples\u2019 Party (SUPP), and the Sarawakian Machinda party. \nThe calculation they were relying on was as such:\n\tWinning all of Singapore\u2019s seats (15)\n\tWinning 16 seats in Sabah and 24 seats in Sarawak (40)\n\tWinning at least 25 seats in Malaya (25)\n\tTotal = 80 seats out of 159.\nThus, by gaining a simple majority of 80 of 159 seats in the Dewan Rakyat, Lee Kuan Yew would become the Prime Minister of Malaysia. In other words; the Malaysian Solidarity Convention was political entity to unite non-Malays against the Alliance. The timing of the Malaysian Solidarity Convention\u2019s unveiling could not have been worse, the 18th UMNO General Assembly was held less than a week later, at which anti-PAP fire and brimstone rained down upon the podium as expected and the Tunku and Tun Dr Ismail were widely condemned for being too soft on Singapore.\nBut by June 1965, Lee was already stating to the newspapers that states such as Singapore, Sabah and Sarawak. Malacca and Penang which wanted a Malaysian Malaysia could get together and secede.  \nOn 20 July 1965, in Tun Razak\u2019s office Dr Goh Keng Swee spent an hour in a closed room with Tun Razak and Tun Dr. Ismail. This meeting would result in the first of the Albatross Papers, which are three documents currently on display in the National Museum of Singapore, so named by Dr Goh in a 1980 interview where he likened the the merger with Malaya to \u2018an Albatross around our neck\u2019 \u2013 a reference to Samuel Taylor Coleridge\u2018s poem \u201cThe Rime of the Ancient Mariner\u201d wherein a sailor is made to wear the carcass of an albatross as punishment for killing it and thereby bringing bad luck to the ship. Dr Goh\u2019s notes of 20 July 1965 showed that during the meeting, he was the one who persuaded his Malaysian counterparts that the only practical solution \u201cwas for Singapore to secede, completely\u201d, and \u201cit must be done very quickly, and very quietly, and presented as a fait accompli\u201d. \nThis was the final nail in the coffin of the Expulsion Theory. After months of agitating the Malaysian central government, Singapore engineered its own exit and presented it as a relief to a much-beleagured Kuala Lumpur. \nOn the 27th of July 1965, Lee Kuan Yew hastily scrawled on a piece of paper the following words: \nI authorise Goh Keng Swee to discuss with Tun Razak, Dato Ismail and such other Federal Ministers of comparable authority concerned in these matters in the Central Govt any proposal for rearrangements of Malaysia.\nThis became the second piece of the holy trinity of the Albatross Papers.\nWith the Tunku being in Europe since early June, Razak led the team that negotiated with Dr Goh the final attempt at salvaging the Merger. It failed miserably. The 6th of August 1965 was the point of no return: only on that fateful day did the Alliance government finally decide that, after less than a month of yapping, Separation was indeed imminent (as late as 9th July 1965, Tan Siew Sin gave an interview on TV where he still dismissed Separation as a \u201cphilosophy of despair\u201d). The one person who put the stamp of finality on this was Razak; the Tunku was conveniently absent from the talks with the Singaporean government the whole time. Razak was the one who led the talks with Dr Goh, and was also the person who definitively convinced the Tunku upon his return from Europe that based on the talks, the only alternative was Separation. Lee was conveniently absent from KL, holidaying in the Camerons and his proxy in Kuala Lumpur Dr Goh Keng Swee was a hardline proponent of Separation (no coincidence that that he was bitter rivals with his cousin Tan Siew Sin, both were Finance Ministers of Singapore and Malaysia respectively, and insulted each other\u2019s parties and policies incessantly). When Lee arrived in KL that same night to put up a magnificent show of desperation in attempting to change the Tunku\u2019s mind for only half an hour (Lee was not known for his brevity of words) before accepting the decision. 3 days later, Separation was effected.\nLee Kuan Yew famously broke down on national television and cried in front of the camera. This would become an iconic moment in the social memory of Singapore and Malaysia: decades later people would still recall where they were the night he wept on TV; some saw it on the TV set in the local Masjid, others in the Hokkien Association. But those tears were reptilian: the third and final part of the Albatross Papers was a memo from Prime Minister Lee to his cabinet members in August 1965. The language was decidedly positive; Lee was \u201cexcited\u201d about Separation it provided the best economic benefits without getting entangled in communal politics. In his own words:\n[The] greatest attraction of this rearrangement is our hope to get the benefits of all worlds \u2013 the common market, political stability with economic expansion, and autonomy in Singapore without interference from KL. The picture of a prosperous and flourishing Singapore doing better than the rest of Malaysia is most attractive.  \nUnless those tears were that of joy, it is hard to imagine the same man wrote these words and wept over Separation.\n\nPart 4: Singapore the Victim?\nIt is also curious to note that once the Malaysian government made up its mind on Separation, the Singaporean government did not squeal to the British, Australian and New Zealand governments to help reopen negotiations in order to avert Separation. If Lee Kuan Yew was truly adamant about wanting to remain in Malaysia, why accept the kick silently instead of appealing to the big powers (of which Singapore had the ears of; the trade of the Commonwealth being very reliant on the stability of the Port of Singapore)? \nThe British were familiar with such situations (i.e. the breakup of the West Indies Federation, and the rocky merger of Tanganyika and Zanibar), and could have stopped or at least slowed down the process. Indeed, due to the city of Singapore being rife with leftist sympathies, the British were especially fearful of the idea of an independent Singapore since the idea was first mooted in the mid-1940s, for fear of seeing the creation of an \u201cAsian Cuba\u201d. But the British High Commissioner was not informed of the impending Separation until 8 August 1965, less than 24 hours before the vote on the Separation Bill. Lee Kuan Yew argued that informing the British early would make the public aware of Separation and lead to Malay riots; but he certainly had no qualms in making inflammatory statements about the Malay race and poking jibes at Malays of Indonesian descent such as UMNO\u2019s Syed Albar for being less Malayan than he, a Chinaman born in Singapore (a narrative still widely employed by Pakatan supporters today, i.e. the Zahid Hamidi birther debacle). \nInstead of bringing up the matter of their \u2018Expulsion\u2019 to the British, Singapore was most compliant; they even went all the way as to draft the Separation agreement and a proclamation of independence themselves (this was done by E.W. Barker, the Singaporean Law Minister, on Lee Kuan Yew\u2019s instructions) as early as July 1965, when the Malaysian side was still open to renegotiating the terms of Merger. \nBut in all fairness, the Separation of Singapore was the Tunku\u2019s idea. At 10 a.m. on the morning of the 9th of August 1965, the Dewan Rakyat sat down to debate on the Separation Bill. Lee Kuan Yew stood up to announce the Separation, and the debate lasted less than 2 hours (in comparison, the Tourism Tax Bill of 2017 took the Dewan Rakyat 20 hours to debate). The vote was unanimous: all ayes and no nays. Tunku Abdul Rahman had already made sure that none of the Bornean MPs would vote otherwise. But look behind the scenes and you will note that a few things didn\u2019t add up. Why did Singapore, which had campaigned so virulently for a merger with Malaysia (it was one of the People\u2019s Action Party\u2019s major promises during the 1959 Singapore elections, in which PAP won, and has never lost an election since), failed to put up a fight with Malaysia to keep Singapore within the Federation? \nHarry Lee\u2019s gang of Lim Kim San, Edmund William Barker, Goh Keng Swee and Toh Chin Chye had all succeeded in pulling off the greatest example of a Nolan-esque Inception: infiltrating the subconscious of their targets and duping them into believing that their decisions were really their\u2019s.'> \n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>by Caleb Goh<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"templates\/template-full-width.php","format":"standard","meta":{"spay_email":""},"categories":[3],"tags":[36,38,35,37,34,27],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v18.6 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/wordpress\/plugins\/seo\/ -->\n<title>The Invention of the Singapore Separation Story - Imagined Malaysia Review<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/review.imagined.my\/?p=68\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"The Invention of the Singapore Separation Story - Imagined Malaysia Review\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"by Caleb Goh\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/review.imagined.my\/?p=68\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Imagined Malaysia Review\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2020-03-22T03:47:06+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2020-07-30T13:57:28+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/review.imagined.my\/wp-content\/uploads\/2020\/03\/Cover7.png\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"834\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"607\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/png\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:title\" content=\"The Invention of the Singapore Separation Story - Imagined Malaysia Review\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:image\" content=\"https:\/\/review.imagined.my\/wp-content\/uploads\/2020\/03\/Cover7.png\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"imreview\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/review.imagined.my\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Imagined Malaysia\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/review.imagined.my\/\",\"sameAs\":[],\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/review.imagined.my\/#logo\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/review.imagined.my\/wp-content\/uploads\/2020\/07\/logo.png\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/review.imagined.my\/wp-content\/uploads\/2020\/07\/logo.png\",\"width\":595,\"height\":895,\"caption\":\"Imagined Malaysia\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/review.imagined.my\/#logo\"}},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/review.imagined.my\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/review.imagined.my\/\",\"name\":\"Imagined Malaysia Review\",\"description\":\"Imagined Malaysia Review is a collection of writings that offers new perspectives on history, culture, and current affairs in Southeast Asia.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/review.imagined.my\/#organization\"},\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\/\/review.imagined.my\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":\"required name=search_term_string\"}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/review.imagined.my\/?p=68#primaryimage\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/review.imagined.my\/wp-content\/uploads\/2020\/03\/Cover7.png\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/review.imagined.my\/wp-content\/uploads\/2020\/03\/Cover7.png\",\"width\":834,\"height\":607},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/review.imagined.my\/?p=68#webpage\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/review.imagined.my\/?p=68\",\"name\":\"The Invention of the Singapore Separation Story - Imagined Malaysia Review\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/review.imagined.my\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2020-03-22T03:47:06+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2020-07-30T13:57:28+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/review.imagined.my\/?p=68#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/review.imagined.my\/?p=68\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/review.imagined.my\/?p=68#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/review.imagined.my\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"The Invention of the Singapore Separation Story\"}]},{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/review.imagined.my\/?p=68#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/review.imagined.my\/?p=68#webpage\"},\"author\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/review.imagined.my\/#\/schema\/person\/3771e3355ba24b7293cd89c0696073ba\"},\"headline\":\"The Invention of the Singapore Separation Story\",\"datePublished\":\"2020-03-22T03:47:06+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2020-07-30T13:57:28+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/review.imagined.my\/?p=68#webpage\"},\"wordCount\":7,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/review.imagined.my\/#organization\"},\"keywords\":[\"lee kuan yew\",\"malaysia\",\"merger\",\"separation\",\"singapore\",\"tunku abdul rahman\"],\"articleSection\":[\"Issue 2: Invented Traditions\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/review.imagined.my\/#\/schema\/person\/3771e3355ba24b7293cd89c0696073ba\",\"name\":\"imreview\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/review.imagined.my\/#personlogo\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/a833fcc3aca5ec0c071bf775792721b6?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/a833fcc3aca5ec0c071bf775792721b6?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"imreview\"},\"url\":\"https:\/\/review.imagined.my\/?author=1\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"The Invention of the Singapore Separation Story - Imagined Malaysia Review","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/review.imagined.my\/?p=68","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"The Invention of the Singapore Separation Story - Imagined Malaysia Review","og_description":"by Caleb Goh","og_url":"https:\/\/review.imagined.my\/?p=68","og_site_name":"Imagined Malaysia Review","article_published_time":"2020-03-22T03:47:06+00:00","article_modified_time":"2020-07-30T13:57:28+00:00","og_image":[{"width":834,"height":607,"url":"https:\/\/review.imagined.my\/wp-content\/uploads\/2020\/03\/Cover7.png","type":"image\/png"}],"twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_title":"The Invention of the Singapore Separation Story - Imagined Malaysia Review","twitter_image":"https:\/\/review.imagined.my\/wp-content\/uploads\/2020\/03\/Cover7.png","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"imreview"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/review.imagined.my\/#organization","name":"Imagined Malaysia","url":"https:\/\/review.imagined.my\/","sameAs":[],"logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","@id":"https:\/\/review.imagined.my\/#logo","inLanguage":"en-US","url":"https:\/\/review.imagined.my\/wp-content\/uploads\/2020\/07\/logo.png","contentUrl":"https:\/\/review.imagined.my\/wp-content\/uploads\/2020\/07\/logo.png","width":595,"height":895,"caption":"Imagined Malaysia"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/review.imagined.my\/#logo"}},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/review.imagined.my\/#website","url":"https:\/\/review.imagined.my\/","name":"Imagined Malaysia Review","description":"Imagined Malaysia Review is a collection of writings that offers new perspectives on history, culture, and current affairs in Southeast Asia.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/review.imagined.my\/#organization"},"potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/review.imagined.my\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":"required name=search_term_string"}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"ImageObject","@id":"https:\/\/review.imagined.my\/?p=68#primaryimage","inLanguage":"en-US","url":"https:\/\/review.imagined.my\/wp-content\/uploads\/2020\/03\/Cover7.png","contentUrl":"https:\/\/review.imagined.my\/wp-content\/uploads\/2020\/03\/Cover7.png","width":834,"height":607},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/review.imagined.my\/?p=68#webpage","url":"https:\/\/review.imagined.my\/?p=68","name":"The Invention of the Singapore Separation Story - Imagined Malaysia Review","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/review.imagined.my\/#website"},"datePublished":"2020-03-22T03:47:06+00:00","dateModified":"2020-07-30T13:57:28+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/review.imagined.my\/?p=68#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/review.imagined.my\/?p=68"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/review.imagined.my\/?p=68#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/review.imagined.my\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"The Invention of the Singapore Separation Story"}]},{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/review.imagined.my\/?p=68#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/review.imagined.my\/?p=68#webpage"},"author":{"@id":"https:\/\/review.imagined.my\/#\/schema\/person\/3771e3355ba24b7293cd89c0696073ba"},"headline":"The Invention of the Singapore Separation Story","datePublished":"2020-03-22T03:47:06+00:00","dateModified":"2020-07-30T13:57:28+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/review.imagined.my\/?p=68#webpage"},"wordCount":7,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/review.imagined.my\/#organization"},"keywords":["lee kuan yew","malaysia","merger","separation","singapore","tunku abdul rahman"],"articleSection":["Issue 2: Invented Traditions"],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/review.imagined.my\/#\/schema\/person\/3771e3355ba24b7293cd89c0696073ba","name":"imreview","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","@id":"https:\/\/review.imagined.my\/#personlogo","inLanguage":"en-US","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/a833fcc3aca5ec0c071bf775792721b6?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/a833fcc3aca5ec0c071bf775792721b6?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"imreview"},"url":"https:\/\/review.imagined.my\/?author=1"}]}},"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/review.imagined.my\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/68"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/review.imagined.my\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/review.imagined.my\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/review.imagined.my\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/review.imagined.my\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=68"}],"version-history":[{"count":4,"href":"https:\/\/review.imagined.my\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/68\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":265,"href":"https:\/\/review.imagined.my\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/68\/revisions\/265"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/review.imagined.my\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=68"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/review.imagined.my\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=68"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/review.imagined.my\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=68"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}