It just goes into how the Chinese ethnic population in Singapore, which is a city state in Malaysia, are aligning more with the Chinese Communist party.
Malaysia has and will continue to be more Pro-China than Singapore ever will be you dumbass.
You don’t even know what you are talking about LMAO.
In the arena of SEA politics, the most Western friendly countries are: Phillipines (neocolonial comprador puppet state of the US), Singapore (glorified tax haven for which International Capital uses as a node for value transfer, and to better control the geopolitically important Strait of Malacca) and Papua New Guinea (neocolonized by Australian companies).
Singapore isn’t a “city-state” in Malaysia, it was booted out of Malaysia to fulfill the comprador Malay feudal classes interests here in Malaysia, that the British acquiesed because containing Communism was more important.
This division can still be seen as a modern-day example of a colonial scar, remaining unresolved because of past and present Western influence.
But surely and steadily this will be removed and our countries will be reunited. That is the logical conclusion of indigenous economic integration, as history has shown.
I think the key point you need to know is that most of the political parties in Singapore, and all the left-wing ones in Malaysia before independence and even after, wanted a unified country, and many in Malaysia even sought for a “Pan-Indonesianism” which would fit into the historical cultural realm of the Malay archipelago (the spoken lingua franca of the entire region prior to European influence).
If reunification has become less popular, is there a general cause of this that wouldn’t require you writing out a treatise for the sake of an offhand question?
Makes perfect sense, thank you. I would have had no problem with an explanation of any length (and the forum might be interested in you making a post on this topic at some point) but I respect your time and patience.
Yup - I also did a quick double check with the stats, its more like hundreds of thousands (400k) per day.
Apparently it is literally the busiest or one of the busiest land borders on Earth.
and the forum might be interested in you making a post on this topic at some point
I have a lot of ideas on this topic regarding Southeast Asian history in general - but I always seemingly want to cover a certain book before I start it, and never get round to actually drafting/creating a post.
I come from a family of academics, and there’s a word of advice that I remember hearing said to others since I was a kid “If you want to write a thesis, you will always feel that you have not done enough research. Eventually, you need to actually write despite that feeling.” Perhaps you could include the books you haven’t read as a little “further reading” section.
Post Independence from Britain Singapore wanted to federate with Malaysia but Malaysia kicked them out because they didn’t want a city full of Chinese and also because they were afraid of Lee Kuan Yew.
Well you seem very well informed, can you explain to me the difference between a city state, and a nation? Is it size? Is it governmental structure? Is it historical?
Honestly I didn’t care much about your use of the term “city-state”, I don’t know why I put it in quotes in the first place.
My main contention was you called it “in” Malaysia, when the whole point was Singapore was excluded from Malaysia purposefully. I apologise for my brash response - I was really annoyed at that, especially after reading the original article shared here.
However I can say that nation and state are not synonymous. Nation-state is specifically a European concept in which was then retroactively applied to non-European cultures. It still has it’s uses especially in International Relations but we must be cognizant of the fact that what it entails isn’t universal.
Nation is more ambiguous and more culturally specific, it could be on the basis of a shared linguistic, economic, religious, cultural, or ideological history. It could be all at once or just one.
In the context of Southeast Asia, what it means to be part of the same nation is typically evoked to be those who practice the similar cultural norms, had similar shared histories, spoken certain dialects and languages. So it may be more useful to think nation as “ethnicity” but even then I wouldn’t say is entirely accurate. I will have to say that this understanding doesn’t include any sort of “blood quantum” rules or anything to do with biological lineage. That was and will always be a specifically Euro-Amerikan tradition.
Many countries are not nation-states, which would include countries like Bolivia, Indonesia, Laos, Viet Nam, China, India and South Africa. Studying them would be a good choice in understanding the nuances of nation, state and nation-state. Concepts like Plurinational State and Civilizational State is of key importance.
Even technically the United Kingdom is not a nation-state, although that is contested.
They key thing that binds them all is that a multitude of different cultures and ethnicities are practiced within the same territory and doesn’t rely on a dominant identity (race, ethnic group, religion) for “nation-building”.
Others in this site may be able to provide a better response than I.
No that was a great response, thank you. So basically they are different countries. Is the popular thought for them to rejoin? Sorry if I’m assuming you know. Honestly SEA is my weakest point for understanding cultural norms.
I would say it fits into the overal popular imagination of the “shared cultural realm” or nation I talked about but in terms of politically, as in a political union of some kind, I would say that it is not feasible or expected in the short and medium term.
The steps are being laid down though, through ASEAN and infrastructural initiatives. Economically, and culturally we are very much intertwined.
And Singapore and Malaysia are really new states, less than 75 years old, so things may change quickly.
Also, Brunei could be absorbed into Malaysia if the Sultan ever decides to in the future as that’s also part of both countries’ constitution.
Malaysia has and will continue to be more Pro-China than Singapore ever will be you dumbass.
You don’t even know what you are talking about LMAO.
In the arena of SEA politics, the most Western friendly countries are: Phillipines (neocolonial comprador puppet state of the US), Singapore (glorified tax haven for which International Capital uses as a node for value transfer, and to better control the geopolitically important Strait of Malacca) and Papua New Guinea (neocolonized by Australian companies).
Singapore isn’t a “city-state” in Malaysia, it was booted out of Malaysia to fulfill the comprador Malay feudal classes interests here in Malaysia, that the British acquiesed because containing Communism was more important.
This division can still be seen as a modern-day example of a colonial scar, remaining unresolved because of past and present Western influence.
But surely and steadily this will be removed and our countries will be reunited. That is the logical conclusion of indigenous economic integration, as history has shown.
I know nothing about this subject. Is it sort of like what happened with Hong Kong and/or Macau?
Somewhat.
I think the key point you need to know is that most of the political parties in Singapore, and all the left-wing ones in Malaysia before independence and even after, wanted a unified country, and many in Malaysia even sought for a “Pan-Indonesianism” which would fit into the historical cultural realm of the Malay archipelago (the spoken lingua franca of the entire region prior to European influence).
Thank you!
If reunification has become less popular, is there a general cause of this that wouldn’t require you writing out a treatise for the sake of an offhand question?
I tried to keep it short and I began to write an entire monograph lmao.
TLDR: It just isn’t as materially important.
People can easily travel between the two states, there’s iirc hundreds of thousands that pass through the immigration bridge weekly.
Families are not separated and both states maintain cordial relations.
Personally I would obviously like to see it happening, but when it isn’t necessary, you get limited by political bureaucracy than anything else.
Makes perfect sense, thank you. I would have had no problem with an explanation of any length (and the forum might be interested in you making a post on this topic at some point) but I respect your time and patience.
Yup - I also did a quick double check with the stats, its more like hundreds of thousands (400k) per day.
Apparently it is literally the busiest or one of the busiest land borders on Earth.
I have a lot of ideas on this topic regarding Southeast Asian history in general - but I always seemingly want to cover a certain book before I start it, and never get round to actually drafting/creating a post.
I come from a family of academics, and there’s a word of advice that I remember hearing said to others since I was a kid “If you want to write a thesis, you will always feel that you have not done enough research. Eventually, you need to actually write despite that feeling.” Perhaps you could include the books you haven’t read as a little “further reading” section.
Post Independence from Britain Singapore wanted to federate with Malaysia but Malaysia kicked them out because they didn’t want a city full of Chinese and also because they were afraid of Lee Kuan Yew.
Well you seem very well informed, can you explain to me the difference between a city state, and a nation? Is it size? Is it governmental structure? Is it historical?
Honestly I didn’t care much about your use of the term “city-state”, I don’t know why I put it in quotes in the first place.
My main contention was you called it “in” Malaysia, when the whole point was Singapore was excluded from Malaysia purposefully. I apologise for my brash response - I was really annoyed at that, especially after reading the original article shared here.
However I can say that nation and state are not synonymous. Nation-state is specifically a European concept in which was then retroactively applied to non-European cultures. It still has it’s uses especially in International Relations but we must be cognizant of the fact that what it entails isn’t universal.
Nation is more ambiguous and more culturally specific, it could be on the basis of a shared linguistic, economic, religious, cultural, or ideological history. It could be all at once or just one.
In the context of Southeast Asia, what it means to be part of the same nation is typically evoked to be those who practice the similar cultural norms, had similar shared histories, spoken certain dialects and languages. So it may be more useful to think nation as “ethnicity” but even then I wouldn’t say is entirely accurate. I will have to say that this understanding doesn’t include any sort of “blood quantum” rules or anything to do with biological lineage. That was and will always be a specifically Euro-Amerikan tradition.
Many countries are not nation-states, which would include countries like Bolivia, Indonesia, Laos, Viet Nam, China, India and South Africa. Studying them would be a good choice in understanding the nuances of nation, state and nation-state. Concepts like Plurinational State and Civilizational State is of key importance.
Even technically the United Kingdom is not a nation-state, although that is contested.
They key thing that binds them all is that a multitude of different cultures and ethnicities are practiced within the same territory and doesn’t rely on a dominant identity (race, ethnic group, religion) for “nation-building”.
Others in this site may be able to provide a better response than I.
No that was a great response, thank you. So basically they are different countries. Is the popular thought for them to rejoin? Sorry if I’m assuming you know. Honestly SEA is my weakest point for understanding cultural norms.
Yup they are seperate entities/states.
I would say it fits into the overal popular imagination of the “shared cultural realm” or nation I talked about but in terms of politically, as in a political union of some kind, I would say that it is not feasible or expected in the short and medium term.
The steps are being laid down though, through ASEAN and infrastructural initiatives. Economically, and culturally we are very much intertwined.
And Singapore and Malaysia are really new states, less than 75 years old, so things may change quickly.
Also, Brunei could be absorbed into Malaysia if the Sultan ever decides to in the future as that’s also part of both countries’ constitution.