Singapore was illegally purchased? replied by gary1910 @ Tue, 27 May 2008 21:23:41 +0800

gary1910 — Tue, 27 May 2008 21:23:41 +0800

Double posts

Singapore was illegally purchased? replied by gary1910 @ Tue, 27 May 2008 18:12:28 +0800

gary1910 — Tue, 27 May 2008 18:12:28 +0800

... Hussein cannot sign away Singapore island. Neither can the...and never came to Singapore at all. get the...the birth of British Singapore was signed by a...by the politicians. When Singapore joined Malaysia, there was... How come when Singapore left, there was ...

Singapore was illegally purchased? replied by SingaporeTyrannosaur @ Tue, 27 May 2008 18:00:14 +0800

SingaporeTyrannosaur — Tue, 27 May 2008 18:00:14 +0800

I believe the real question is:

So what?

What is he going to do about it?

LOL, owned!

Singapore was illegally purchased? replied by rain-coat @ Tue, 27 May 2008 12:18:46 +0800

rain-coat — Tue, 27 May 2008 12:18:46 +0800

if idwar is still so adamant then let him be lah...anyway we all know he is talking bullshit...lets all leave this thread and let idwar go on and on and on himself...he can live in his own truly asia fantasy

Singapore was illegally purchased? replied by Poh Ah Pak @ Tue, 27 May 2008 12:09:52 +0800

Poh Ah Pak — Tue, 27 May 2008 12:09:52 +0800

When Singapore joined Malaysia, there was a Referendum to determine the wishes of the people.

That was a bullshit referendum.

http://uncleyap.blogspot.com/2007/06/

Singapore was illegally purchased? replied by purpledragon84 @ Tue, 27 May 2008 12:03:00 +0800

purpledragon84 — Tue, 27 May 2008 12:03:00 +0800

Originally posted by idwar:

Even the separation on 1965 was suspect in legal terms........ it was the brainchild of the Tengku which was not endorsed in a Referendum on both sides of the causeway. There was no "self-determination" by the public. It was all a Wayang show by the politicians.

WAH... MR CONSPIRACY THEORY SIA...

malaysia wants us out 40+ years ago and SUDDENLY out of nowhere and COINCIDENTALLY just after losing a few pieces of rock some siao kia comes ard and claims the separation is suspicious leh.. wow..

caught fucking ur old wife by ur new wife and claims that the divorce papers are flawed.. nice..

Singapore was illegally purchased? replied by idwar @ Tue, 27 May 2008 11:50:37 +0800

idwar — Tue, 27 May 2008 11:50:37 +0800

Hello Gary 1910

I know my history. It's you who kapo the info on Sultan Hussein from Sammyboy forum originally posted by "thePlen." Shame on yourself without acknowleging your sources..........

If you had read my post correctly, I had already said the present Sultanate of Johore did not come from the original royal house. That is why I said they were descended from a Pirate who usurped the throne and then begged the British the recognise him as Sultan.

I also made it clear that the true sultan was the brother in Rhio. Raffles planted his elder brother Hussein on the throne. Hussein cannot sign away Singapore island. Neither can the Pirate-sultan of Johore who appeared later on the scene.

So there are 3 parties in this story:

1. Hussein - fake sultan appointed by Raffles

2. Temenggong who became Johore Pirate Sultan

3. Younger brother Ab. Rahman who remained in Rhio and never came to Singapore at all.

get the picture? I sometimes feel i am wasting my time trying to educate kids in here who think they know everything. Typical Singaporeans.....

======================

Anyway, my point is this: the documents relating to the birth of British Singapore was signed by a fake pretender Sultan who was placed on the throne by Raffles himself. So the document was illegal in the first place. Singapore's birth in 1819 /1824 was illegitimate.......Singapore was recognised only by the British and those locals who sold out to the British!

Even the separation on 1965 was suspect in legal terms........ it was the brainchild of the Tengku which was not endorsed in a Referendum on both sides of the causeway. There was no "self-determination" by the public. It was all a Wayang show by the politicians.

When Singapore joined Malaysia, there was a Referendum to determine the wishes of the people. How come when Singapore left, there was no Referendum?

Singapore was illegally purchased? replied by Pin Head @ Tue, 27 May 2008 02:10:06 +0800

Pin Head — Tue, 27 May 2008 02:10:06 +0800

Now everything also want ICJ to handle.

Singapore was illegally purchased? replied by gary1910 @ Tue, 27 May 2008 01:23:04 +0800

gary1910 — Tue, 27 May 2008 01:23:04 +0800

That is not the end of the story, after 1824 treaty, the Sultan Hussein Shah of the new Sultanate of Johor later signed away his ruler rights to the British in return for cash payment and annual pension (which SG govt is still paying for the Sultan's descendants ),so he was a name only Sultan with no real power.

http://www.streetdirectory.com/travel_guide/singapore/historical_sites/76/sultans_gate___the_istana_sultans_place.php

In fact, current Sultan of Johor is not Sultan Hussein Shah's descendant!!!

He is the descendant of Temengong Abdul Rahman (same name but but not the same person as Tengku Abdul Rahman who later became Sultan of Riau Sultanate under the Dutch,the brother of Sultan Hussein Shah)

So idwar, you have mixed up the 2 because they have the same name!!!

So how did the descendant of Temengong Abdul Rahman became the Sultan of Johor?

After the death of Sultan Ali (son of Sultan Hussein Shah), Temengong Abdul Rahman's grandson, Abu Bakar asked the British Crown, Queen Victoria that he was to be bestowed as the new Sultan of Johor,Queen Victoria agreed and he and his family moved from SG to Johor to become the new royal family of Johor.

http://www.bahasa-malaysia-simple-fun.com/johor.html

So in reality, the current Sultan of Johor is not the actual descendant of the old Johor-Riau Sultanate and even worse not the actual descendant of new Johor Sultanate of Sultan Hussein Shah!!!

He is the descendant of the puppet Sultan Abu Bakar created by the British who father and grandfather before him were all pro-British and not the true heir of the original Johor-Riau Sultanate!!!

In fact, Sultan Hussein Shah and later Sultan Ali were quite badly treated by the British and tried to forced them out of SG then, perhaps because they are true heir of the old Johor-Riau Sultanate.

So if anyone want to claim any portion of the old Johor-Riau Sultanate then it should be the actual descendant of Sultan Hussein Shah which are still living in SG!!!

(But please note the family has signed it away in the Crawford treaty)

So idwar, if you dunno your history , dun try to act smart by twisting facts, it only make you look stupid by being a ignorant fool!!!!!

Singapore was illegally purchased? replied by Shotgun @ Tue, 27 May 2008 00:14:21 +0800

Shotgun — Tue, 27 May 2008 00:14:21 +0800

The TS purposely wanna stir sh!t.

Eh, but there are some Malaysian politicians who believe that Singapore was illegally kicked out of the Federation in some kinda "lightning" politics.

Singapore was illegally purchased? replied by maurizio13 @ Mon, 26 May 2008 23:45:49 +0800

maurizio13 — Mon, 26 May 2008 23:45:49 +0800

Hehehe.....

TS has left teh building.

Think TS has gone back to his Malaysian kampung to rear chickens.

Singapore was illegally purchased? replied by Sumone3 @ Mon, 26 May 2008 23:44:27 +0800

Sumone3 — Mon, 26 May 2008 23:44:27 +0800

Guys, before you all keep going on about how Singapore was booted out by Malaysia (myself included), I suspect the point he is trying to make is something else.

I think what he is trying to say is that whether or not Singapore still belongs to Malayisa, Singapore does not deserve it’s status as a sorvereigne state/country/whatever.

Singapore was illegally purchased? replied by Sumone3 @ Mon, 26 May 2008 23:40:51 +0800

Sumone3 — Mon, 26 May 2008 23:40:51 +0800

idwar,

What’s the point you are trying to make? That Singapore should still be part of Malaysia? Or that Singapore should never have been a British colony in the first place?

If it is the former, Singapore was officially kicked out of Malaysia in 1965. Whether by mistake of Malaysia or Singapore, Malaysia no longer wanted Singapore to be part of them. It was the choice of the Malaysian government.

Are you saying the Malaysian governement was at fault for giving up Singapore?

What is the point you are trying to make really?

Singapore was illegally purchased? replied by googoomuck @ Mon, 26 May 2008 22:36:05 +0800

googoomuck — Mon, 26 May 2008 22:36:05 +0800

Trace of Parameswara's ancestral links to Alexander The Great can be done by DNA test.

He was a Hindu who turned traitor for a piece of tail.

Singapore was illegally purchased? replied by Poh Ah Pak @ Mon, 26 May 2008 20:55:48 +0800

Poh Ah Pak — Mon, 26 May 2008 20:55:48 +0800

Parameswara was a Palembang prince of Hindu descent from Srivijaya that founded Sultanate of Malacca.

According to Sejarah Melayu, Parameswara was a descendant of Alexander the Great.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parameswara

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Srivijaya

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sultanate_of_Malacca

Singapore was illegally purchased? replied by oxford mushroom @ Mon, 26 May 2008 20:47:12 +0800

oxford mushroom — Mon, 26 May 2008 20:47:12 +0800

Originally posted by idwar:

Malaysia very the boleh !

At lest Malaysia's legal existance is never in doubt, not like Singapore.....got no birth certificate, don't know who the father is!

Maybe illegal entity......

Not sure about that. The founder of Malacca was a Palembang prince chased out of Sumatra. He was given shelter in Temasek by a local chief from Patani appointed by Siam but instead of gratitude he murdered the chief, intending to take over Temasek. The wrath of the Siamese king forced him to escape to Malacca. The Johore sultanate which sold Temasek to the British came from a branch of Parameswara's descendants. So if you want to argue it this way, perhaps the Indonesians can claim both Malacca and Johore.

Singapore was illegally purchased? replied by Vendettus @ Mon, 26 May 2008 18:15:31 +0800

Vendettus — Mon, 26 May 2008 18:15:31 +0800

Originally posted by idwar:

Did Raffles legally buy over Singapore island? Maybe the guy who sold the island was not the Legally recognised Sultan? You see- there were 2 brothers fighting for the throne. Raffles conveniently recognise one side and got him to sign on the dotted line.

If so, then the title deed is in doubt. Time to refer to ICJ and return Singapore to rightful owner.......whoever you think it may be.....Johor? Rhio? Thailand? Sea Gypsies? Pirates of Chow Yuen fatt?

Pirates of Chow Yuen Fatt? The idea sounds enticing...

Singapore was illegally purchased? replied by Atobe @ Mon, 26 May 2008 14:07:53 +0800

Atobe — Mon, 26 May 2008 14:07:53 +0800

Originally posted by idwar:

Atobe wrote:

This arrangement came to a final arrangement with the signing of the Crawford Treaty in 1824 - between the Johor Sultan, his Temenggong and the British East India Company - which ceded Singapore including all the islands and sea water up to ten nautical miles from its shores.

==================

That's what I am driving at : That the Johor Sultan who signed away Singapore in 1924 was not the true Sultan. His brother was the true Sultan. So this guy has got no right to deal with the British. he got no right to sell Singapore island away.

Not long after the signing, the imposter Sultan was deposed, and he spent the rest of his life as a welfare receipient of the British in his "palace" in Kampong Glam. The Johor Sultanate was taken over by a temenggong-pirate who claimed the throne. To ensure recognition by the British, the new Pirate-Sultan gave in to all British demands, including the use of PB island for a lighthouse.........

The descendants of the Pirate sultan are still in the Johore sultanate today. Unlike all other Royal houses, they cannot claim royal blood linage from the original Malacca king.....

Did you read the referenced pages in the ICJ report that I had referred you to, or did you simply quote part of my reply simply to suit your preferred agenda ?

What is your agenda in insulting the present Johor Royal Family as the descendants of the Pirate Sultan, whose status was illegal and with the present descendants similarly also illegal inheritors to the throne ?

Page 28 to 29 from the ICJ Report stated the following:

85. In assessing the relevance of the argument thus presented by Singapore to the issue of title to Pedra Branca / Pulau Batu Puteh, it is necessary to distinguish two different issues: one is whether the sovereign entity of the Sultanate of Johor continued to exist as the same legal entity after the division; and the other whether the territorial domain of the "new Sultanate of Johor" included Pedra Branca / Pulau Batu Puteh.

86. In relation to the first question, the Court concludes from the documentary evidence submitted by Malaysia, that the Sultanate of Johor continued to exist as the same sovereign entity throughout the period 1512 to 1824, in spite of changes in the precise geographical scope of its territorial domain and vicissitudes of fortunes in the Sultanate through the ages, and that these changes and vicissitudes did not affect the legal situation in relation to the area of the Singapore Straits, which always remained within the territorial domain of the Sultanate of Johor.

87. On that basis the Court observes that as long as it is established that the old Sultanate of Johor continued as the same legal entity that became the subject of the dvision in 1824, the issue of whether the new Sultanate of Johor under Sultan Hussein and the Temenggong or the new Sultanate in Riau under Sultan Abdul Rahman was the legal continuator in title of the "old Sultanate of Johor" before the break, is immaterial in the present case. Whatever position the Parties may take in this respect, the island in question, i.e. Pedra Branca / Pulau Batu Puteh, had to come under the sovereignty of one or other of the Sultanates (see paragraph 100 below)

88. In relation to the second question, the Court notes that it is common ground between the Parties that the "old Sultanate of Johor" came to be divided in the context of the dynastic rivalry between the two sons of the late Sultan Mahmud III (see paragraph 23 abvoe) and the competing interests of the United Kingdom and the Netherlands in the region.

89. It is also common ground between Singapore and Malaysia that the 1824 Treaty had the effecting, according to Singapore, of "divid{ing} the region into two spheres of influence" or, according to Malaysia, of "divid{ing} the region into two spheres of influence" - one belonging to the Dutch sphere of influence covering the territorial domain of the Riau-Lingga Sultanate under Abdul Rahman, and the other falling under the British sphere of influence covering the territorial domain of the Sultanate of Johor under Hussein.

The contents in Paragraph 89 clearly establish Hussein as the recognise ruler of the Sultanate of Johor, who was a party to the 1824 Treaty that ceded to the Bristh East India Company the island of Singapore and the islands within and with the surrounding seas known as the Straits of Singapore that is 10 nautical miles from the shores of the Main Island of Singapore.

Are you disputing this ICJ assessment of facts for that period in their judgment that settled the Pedra Branca issue - and which is similarly used to rebutt your mischevious fantasy concerning the legality of the Johor Sultanate cedeing Singapore to the British ?

Singapore was illegally purchased? replied by Short Ninja @ Mon, 26 May 2008 12:34:39 +0800

Short Ninja — Mon, 26 May 2008 12:34:39 +0800

Originally posted by Poh Ah Pak:

Malaysia fears that the chinese population in Singapore might pose a threat to the social and economic position of malays in Malaysia.

As long as this fear is there, they will not accept Singapore as part of Malaysia.

For this reason, they kicked Singapore out in 1965.

My position on this issue is that if conditions changes in the future, Singapore might go back to Malaysian Federation under a PRC-HK style political arrangement.

I think that would be a great idea and the funny thing is that LKY could be dreaming the same idea.

Singapore was illegally purchased? replied by fudgester @ Mon, 26 May 2008 12:11:52 +0800

fudgester — Mon, 26 May 2008 12:11:52 +0800

Originally posted by purpledragon84:

even if u were right la.. singapore all along under malaysia.. until... 1965... oso kick us out liao what.. so now want back..?

Tat's what everyone has been telling him.

I guess it's now pretty clear that he's in denial.

Singapore was illegally purchased? replied by Gackt247 @ Mon, 26 May 2008 11:46:08 +0800

Gackt247 — Mon, 26 May 2008 11:46:08 +0800

Who cares.. as long as we are in control of our destiny which so happens to be alot more glowing.. I'm glad.

Singapore was illegally purchased? replied by substance1983 @ Mon, 26 May 2008 11:05:25 +0800

substance1983 — Mon, 26 May 2008 11:05:25 +0800

Upon learning of these Johor political tensions, Raffles made a deal with Hussein Shah. Their agreement stated that the British would acknowledge Hussein Shah as the legitimate ruler of Johor, and thus Tengku Hussein and the Temenggung would receive a yearly stipend from the British. In return, Tengku Hussein would allow Raffles to establish a trading post in Singapore. This treaty was ratified on February 6, 1819.[2][3]

So Raffles was the one who started the under table money....now being recorded in history -_-''

Some white guy just came with a ship full of cannon and fire power and "claim" the land. Not really justified in today's law.

Singapore was illegally purchased? replied by w.eikaas @ Mon, 26 May 2008 10:36:07 +0800

w.eikaas — Mon, 26 May 2008 10:36:07 +0800

whatever it is, i am just happy that we are no longer part of malaysia

Singapore was illegally purchased? replied by maurizio13 @ Mon, 26 May 2008 10:34:53 +0800

maurizio13 — Mon, 26 May 2008 10:34:53 +0800

CASE CLOSED

Singapore was illegally purchased? replied by maurizio13 @ Mon, 26 May 2008 10:25:12 +0800

maurizio13 — Mon, 26 May 2008 10:25:12 +0800

Being a Malaysian, you seem to have a poor grasp of history. Maybe the Malaysian government should do something about the education system in Malaysia, make Malaysian history a compulsory subject in schools. Having a more productive education system will help the younger generation think better, thus not ending up like somebody here (whose name I shall not reveal).

It's stated in the Britannica article that Abdul Rahman was not the sultan de jure (lawful ruler). It's more like the younger brother usurp the throne from his elder brother (which is the rightful ruler), the British sought to make things right by installing the rightful heir to the throne and in the process purchasing an island.

In January 1819 Sir Thomas Stamford Raffles of the English East India Company, searching for a trading site, forestalled by the Dutch at Riau, and finding the Carimon (Karimun) Islands unsuitable, landed at Singapore. He found only a few Chinese planters, some aborigines, and a few Malays and was told by the hereditary chief, the temenggong (direct ancestor of the sultans of modern Johor), that the company could purchase land. The temenggong, however, was a subordinate of his cousin Abdul Rahman, sultan of Riau-Johor, who was under Dutch surveillance. Furthermore, Abdul Rahman was a younger son and not a sultan de jure. Raffles, disobeying instructions not to offend the Dutch, withdrew his own recognition of Abdul Rahman's suzerainty over Singapore and installed Abdul Rahman's elder brother, Hussein (Husain), to validate the purchase of land there on behalf of the company. The Dutch protested. In London the court of directors, though it decided Raffles had contravened instructions, took no action.

http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-52640/Singapore

In 1818, Sir Stamford Raffles was appointed as the governor of Bencoolen on western Sumatra. However, he was convinced that the British needed to establish a new base in Southeast Asia in order to compete with the Dutch. Though many in the British East India Company opposed such idea, Raffles managed to convince Lord Hastings of the Company, then Governor General of British India, to side with him. With the governor general's consent, he and his expedition set out to search for a new base.^[1]

Raffles' expedition arrived in Singapore on January 29, 1819. He discovered a small Malay settlement at the mouth of Singapore River headed by a Temenggung (governor) of Johor. Though the island was nominally ruled by the sultanate, the political situation there was extremely murky. The current sultan, Tengku Abdul Rahman, was under the influence of the Dutch and the Bugis. Hence, he would never agree to a British base in Singapore.

However, Tengku Abdul Rahman was ruler only because his older brother, Tengku Hussein or Tengku Long, had been away in Pahang getting married when their father died in 1812. According to Malay tradition, a person has to be by the dying sultan's side in order to be considered as the new ruler. Predictably, the older brother was not happy with the development. Furthermore, the Temenggung preferred Tengku Hussein (Hussein Shah upon accession to the throne) to the younger brother.

With the Temenggung's help, Raffles managed to smuggle Hussein Shah, then living in exile on one of the Riau Islands, back into Singapore.

The Dutch were extremely displeased with Raffles' action. Tensions between the Dutch and British over Singapore persisted until 1824, when they signed the Anglo-Dutch Treaty. Under the terms of that treaty, the Dutch officially withdrew their opposition to the British presence in Singapore.^[4] The treaty also divided the Sultanate of Johor into modern Johor and the new Sultanate of Riau.

In the newly-formed Johor, although Hussein Shah was the sultan, it was the Temenggung who wielded real authority. The Bugis, on the other hand, controlled Riau under the auspices of the Dutch.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hussein_Shah_of_Johor

Recent Posts in 'Singapore was illegally purchased?' | sgForums.com