Archive for June, 2015

More than doctor behind Amos Yee’s psychiatric report

June 26, 2015

I refer to the 24 June 2015 TR Emeritus article “Doctor behind Amos Yee’s psychiatric report” by Cybernut Investor.

Cybernut Investor wrote:

He’ll be sent to Woodbridge for two weeks’ of observation and may then undergo mandatory treatment. (Trumpets pls, I predicted this early yesterday morning (23 Jun 2015) before the sun rose.

But in another TR Emeritus report “Taiwan News: Amos Yee suicidal in SG prison” published on 22 Jun 2015, one day before Cybernut Investor’s purported prediction, TR Emeritus had already reported that Amos had been imprisoned at a psychiatric ward:

Amos Yee, the Youtube personality and blogger who was arrested because he openly criticized Lee Kuan Yew on Youtube, is currently imprisoned at a psychiatric ward and mentally tortured by the institution, stated Dodwell & Co LLC. Yee’s lawyer said the boy is suffering from depression and attempted to commit suicide because of the inhumane treatment.

According to Dodwell & Co LLC, Amos Yee informed the prison psychiatrists that he had suicidal thoughts on the third day of his imprisonment, June 4. He was then taken to a mental asylum ward with one of his hands and legs strapped to bed.

What’s there for Cybernut Investor to trumpet when it was already reported that Amos had been imprisoned at a psychiatric ward? Does Cybernut Investor think it is a quantum leap to link the prison psychiatric ward to Woodbridge?

Cybernut Investor wrote:

Already the cybernuts are saying that Amos is being “fixed”.
The problem with this view is that M Ravi … personally chose to consult Dr Munidasa Winslow … M Ravi has also not disowned Dr Winslow’s diagnosis in February 2015 … Furthermore M Ravi has not challenged his suspension from practicising law …
So if M Ravi is being treated by Dr Munidasa Winslow, how can one reasonably argue that Amos Yee is being fixed? The doctor trusted by M Ravi is the one saying Amos may be autistic. Unless of course, one asserts that M Ravi has been conned into consulting Dr Winslow?

The problem with Cybernut Investor’s logic is that he is confining the fixer only to Dr Winslow. However, consider the 25 Jun 2015 Online Citizen report “A mother visits her son at IMH” about Amos’ mother Ms Mary Toh’s comments:

I understand that block 7 is where they also keep the truly mentally ill patients, and those who have committed crimes or offences and who are also mentally unsound.

It is also where my son is being held.

I wondered why my son, who is here to be assessed if he has autism, is kept here in the same block as those who are mentally ill.

I am told that there is a private ward at IMH where my son, who is not mentally unsound, could be sent to.

But he is ordered to be assessed at Block 7.

Given that Dr Winslow is no longer a staff at the IMH; it would have been impossible for him to order Amos to be held at Block 7 rather than at the private ward. Thus, contrary to what Cybernut Investor had in mind, the fixing need not necessarily be from Dr Winslow but from other parts of the state apparatus acting on Dr Winslow’s assessment.


UK election results do not make PAP look democratic

June 16, 2015

I refer to the 13 Jun 2015 TR Emeritus article “UK election results make PAP look democratic”.

Cybernut Investor wrote:

Anti-PAP cybernuts (like OXYGEN, Dosh), their heroes (Mad Dog Chee, s/o JBJ), rational activists opposed to the PAP (Yes, there are many like SDP’s Dr Paul Thamby and Dr Wong Wee Nam, Dr Ang Yong Guan, P Ravi, TeamTRE etc), and

Since Cynical Investor makes no qualms labeling his critics like OXYGEN as cybernut, he will henceforth be called Cybernut Investor.

Cybernut Investor must be nuts to say that rational people like Dr Paul Thamby and Dr Wong Wee Nam will choose to work under a mad dog. Either Dr Thamby and Dr Wong are irrational or Dr Chee isn’t a mad dog.

Cybernut Investor wrote:

… most neutral political analysts bemoan the system here: with only 60% of the votes the PAP won 81 seats (93%) of the seats at the last GE. The WP with 12% of the vote won 6 seats. And although the Oppo had 40% of the vote, these 6 seats were all they won. This pattern is consistent in all the elections since 1959.
Well the UK, is supposed to be a bastion of democracy but in the last election
– In Scotland, the SNP had only 50% of the votes but won 56 out of 59 seats (Labour lost 40 seats). 50% of the voters ended up with only 3 seats.
– In the country as a whole, the Tories had only 37% of the vote, yet have a 12 seat majority over the combined opposition share of the seats. 63% voted against them, yet the Tories formed the govt.
Makes PAP’s 60% of popular vote and 93% of the seats look more “democratic”, a lot more. At least 60% of adult S’poreans voted for the PAP.

If the Scottish National Party can go from being the underdogs to the overwhelming new winner of Scottish votes overnight, surely that counts towards democracy? Can that happen in Singapore?

From the table below, it can be seen that the Conservatives’ 50.9% electoral seat share is only 14% more than their vote share of 37%. In contrast, PAP’s 93.1% electoral seat share is 33% more than their 60.1% vote share. PAP’s 33% extra electoral seat share is much more compared to the Conservatives’ extra 14% seat share so there is definitely reason for Singaporeans to feel aggrieved.

Cybernut Investor has no basis to claim that the 63% UK votes that didn’t go to the Conservatives were votes against the Conservatives because they could simply be votes for the respective parties that they went to. A consumer that chooses apple juice over orange juice doesn’t necessarily have anything against orange juice; he just prefers apple juice that’s all.

The 63% votes that went to other UK parties resulted in 49% seat share which is a discount of only 14% whereas for Singapore, the 40% votes that went to opposition parties garnered only 7% seat share which is a whopping discount of 33%. So contrary to what Cybernut Investor said, this makes PAP’s 60% vote share and 93% seat share look less democratic – a lot less.

UK 2015 electoral results

Seats % seats % vote share % seats – % vote share
Conservatives 331 50.90% 36.90% 14%
Labour 232 35.70% 30.40% 5%
Scotish National 56 8.60% 4.70% 4%
Liberal Democratic 8 1.20% 7.90% -7%
Democratic Unionist 8 1.20% 0.60% 1%
Sinn Fein 4 0.60% 0.60% 0%
Plaid Cymru 3 0.50% 0.60% 0%
Social Democratic and Labour 3 0.50% 0.30% 0%
Ulster Unionist 2 0.30% 0.40% 0%
UK Independence 1 0.20% 12.60% -12%
Green 1 0.20% 3.80% -4%
Independent 1 0.20% 0.30% 0%
Alliance 0 0.00% 0.20% 0%
TUSC 0 0.00% 0.10% 0%
National Health Action 0 0.00% 0.10% 0%
Traditional Unionist Voice 0 0.00% 0.10% 0%
Others 0 0.00% 0.50% -1%
650 100.00% 100.10%

Singapore 2011 electoral results

Seats % seats % vote share % seats – % vote share</td
PAP 81 93.10% 60.10% 33%</td
WP 6 6.90% 12.80% -6%</td
NSP 0 0.00% 12.00% -12%</td
SDP 0 0.00% 4.80% -5%</td
Reform Party 0 0.00% 4.30% -4%</td
SPP 0 0.00% 3.10% -3%</td
SDA 0 0.00% 2.80% -3%</td
87 100.00% 99.90% </td

Cybernut Investor wrote:

And don’t you forget that OXYGEN and the other cybernuts infesting TRE, scrounging off and undermining TeamTRE’s efforts to make S’pore a less PAP friendly place.

Cybernut Investor must be nuts to suggest that TeamTRE’s efforts are being undermined by OXYGEN when it is TeamTRE that approves OXYGEN’s many wise comments. That would be akin to saying TeamTRE is undermining its own efforts.

Cybernut Investor wrote:

In the UK, even if they all formed a coalition, the Oppo had less seats than the Tories.

But in the UK, a coalition of all opposition would have a seat share of 49% whereas in Singapore, a coalition of all opposition results in a measly 7% seat share. Thus, Cybernut Investor’s example undermines his own argument.

Cybernut Investor wrote:

But that’s not all. If Labour had gotten 37% of the votes instead of 30%, and had not lost 40 seats in Scotland, it would have likely won the election. In that case the 63% who did not vote Labour would have to accept a Labour govt.

The 63% that didn’t vote for Labour would still have perhaps 49% representation in parliament – that’s still much greater democracy than compared to Singapore.

Lee Kuan Yew is not Singapore’s founding father

June 6, 2015

I refer to the 24 Mar 2015 Straits Times report “Singapore mourns: Thousands pay tribute to founding father Mr Lee Kuan Yew”.

ST quoted PM Lee:

“The first of our founding fathers is no more. He inspired us, gave us courage, kept us together, and brought us here. He fought for our independence, built a nation where there was none, and made us proud to be Singaporeans. We won’t see another man like him,” he said.

Lee Kuan Yew is not our founding father let alone the first because he never fought for our independence like George Washington or Gandhi did for their respective countries. Instead, Lee was the recipient of our independence and was on record to say that it was a moment of anguish for him. Isn’t it contradictory that Lee fought for our independence yet felt anguished when we became independent? Lee’s anguish at our independence confirms that he never wanted Singapore to be independent which in turn means that he never would have fought for our independence let alone be considered our founding father.

The inspiration Singaporeans have for Lee is misplaced for it wasn’t Lee but Dr Winsemius who was the true architect of our industrialization and whose plans brought us here. Lee’s courage was starkly absent when the Japanese invaded Singapore. He divided the country with his factious politics. He not so much built a nation than inherited one. Singaporeans were already proud before Lee came to power.

ST quoted PM Lee:

To many here and abroad, he said, “Lee Kuan Yew was Singapore. Singapore was his abiding passion. He gave of himself, in full measure, to Singapore. As he himself put it towards the end of his life and I quote, ‘I have spent my life, so much of it, building up this country. There’s nothing more that I need to do. At the end of the day, what have I got? A successful Singapore. What have I given up? My life.'”

Too many here and abroad equate Lee Kuan Yew with Singapore because they have no better information than state propaganda.

Lee didn’t give of himself to defending Singapore during Singapore’s hour of need but gave of himself to working for the Japanese enemy instead which would normally have been seen as treachery in other countries like France. Lee clearly would not give up his life for Singapore. Whatever Lee gave was in return for his own survival and benefit that had little to do with Singapore becoming successful for without Lee, Singapore would most likely have ended up like Hong Kong – different but prosperous just the same.

ST quoted PM Lee:

PM Lee called on Singaporeans to honour Mr Lee’s spirit, even as they mourned his loss, and work together to “build on his foundations, strive for his ideals, and keep Singapore exceptional and successful for many years to come”.

Singapore’s foundations weren’t Lee’s for much of what Singapore is today can be traced back to priceless British colonial inheritances as explained by Dr Goh Keng Swee.

ST wrote:

Over at Tanjong Pagar, which Mr Lee represented for 60 years since 1955, thousands more turned out to pay tribute to the man some called the “father of the nation”, bowing respectfully before a large portrait of him.
Retired calligrapher Seow Cheong Choon, 80, wept as he recounted how he had once railed against Mr Lee, doubting he would deliver on his promises to house Singapore’s slum dwellers and squatters.

“He said he would give us all a house. Not just one or two people, but the thousands living in attap houses,” he said in Mandarin. “I was angry with his promises of false hope. Who could believe him? Singapore was chaotic, muddy, full of gangsters.”

He was referring to the time Mr Lee had declared at a 1965 grassroots event: “This country belongs to all of us. We made this country from nothing, from mudflats… Today, this is a modern city. Ten years from now, this will be a metropolis. Never fear!”

This is another example of Lee’s habit of exaggerating his own accomplishments. Surely the turning of mudflat to city was achieved by the British, not Lee Kuan Yew? Singapore certainly did not transform from mudflat to city in the 6 short years that Lee was in charge. Lee also boasted to Chicago businessmen in 1968 that Singapore was already a metropolis. Again, Singapore did not turn from city to metropolis in 3 short years. Unfortunately much of Lee’s boasting has been uncritically accepted by the people. Mr Seow should take note of the numerous government advertisements asking the people to sell their flats back to the government and realize that for these people, Lee’s promises had, in the end, come to nothing.

ST wrote:

Little wonder then that he came to be regarded as the man most instrumental in shaping this country, from the time he and his People’s Action Party colleagues pushed for self-government in the 1950s to their quest for merger with the Federation of Malaya, Sabah and Sarawak to form the new nation Malaysia in the early 1960s, and their efforts to secure the Republic’s survival after independence was thrust on it on Aug 9, 1965.

The man most instrumental in shaping post independence Singapore has to be Dr Winsemius, for it was his economic plan that our industrialization was based on for which Lee himself expressed indebtedness.

The biggest push for self government came from the Leftists who were subsequently expelled by the PAP. It would be most shameless for the PAP to claim the credit of those whom it subsequently expelled.

Lee’s push for merger with Malaya was a mere substitution of British monarchy for a Malaysian one without any improvement to our state of independence.

ST wrote:

He famously wept on TV announcing the “moment of anguish”, when Singapore was “severed” from Malaysia. Not only had he believed deeply in a unified Malaysia as a multiracial society, but he must also have sensed the enormity of the task for the new city-state to make a living in an inhospitable world.

That moment of anguish is proof that Lee Kuan Yew never wanted Singapore to be independent and so could never have fought for our independence let alone be regarded as our founding father.

Lee’s so-called belief in a multiracial Malaysia was hypocritical at best. He had already sold Singapore out to Malaysia knowing full well he was subjecting all Singaporeans to the Bumiputra policy that was already enshrined in the Malaysian constitution.

ST wrote:

… Having survived life-and-death battles with the communists and communalists in Singapore’s troubled early years, he made plain that he was not averse to donning “knuckledusters” to take on and “demolish” his political adversaries. He refused to be swayed by popular sentiment or opinion polls, believing that voters would come round when they eventually saw the benefits of policies he had pushed through.

Lee’s so-called survival of battles with communists and communalists were figments of his imagination. The communists had largely been hunted down and eradicated by the British long before the State of Emergency ended in 1960. The Leftists that remained didn’t so much as do battle with Lee as were persecuted by him.

Lee was the key player in the entire communalist saga. It was his good comrades Lim Kim San and Dr Toh Chin Chye who pointed to Lee as being the one who made racist and incendiary speeches that contributed to racial riots ( Before Lee came to power, the Malays and Chinese had been living together peacefully for more than a hundred years (

Lee need not be swayed by popular sentiment because he controlled the press and could therefore shape popular sentiment instead.

ST wrote:

He was both a visionary and a radical thinker, and was instrumental in a host of major policies that have shaped almost every aspect of Singaporeans’ lives, from promoting public housing, home ownership, racial integration in public estates and, later, estate upgrading, to adopting English as a common language for the disparate races in Singapore.

Lee was no visionary; his vision was borrowed from Dr Winsemius. Lee may have been instrumental in disastrous policies like Stop-At-Two or Graduates’ Mothers Scheme but the key policy of export industrialization went strictly according to Dr Winsemius’ plan.

Despite not having Lee Kuan Yew, Malaysia ended up besting Singapore in the English Proficiency Index (

ST wrote:

He made multiracialism and meritocracy as well as economically sound and corruption-free government hallmarks of the Singapore way. He carried over his own frugal ways to the business of government and was relentless in his fight against the “cancer of corruption”, making plain no one was beyond being investigated and ejected from office if they strayed.

Multiracialism, meritocracy and economically sound government were already well entrenched during colonial times. Singapore’s racial harmony was already an inspiration to all during colonial times ( Lee Kuan Yew, his wife Kwa Gek Choo and Dr Goh Keng Swee all won scholarships given by the British colonial government. Dr Goh Keng Swee attributed the second of four reasons why Singapore succeeded to the lean, mean British colonial government:

In the modern idiom, the Victorians who governed Singapore established and maintained an infrastructure at minimum cost with maximum efficiency.

[Goh Keng Swee, The Practice of Economic Growth, Chapter 1: Why Singapore succeeds, pages 6-7]

ST wrote:

He pushed for ministers and senior civil servants to be paid salaries pegged to private sector rates, despite that being controversial, believing it was necessary if Singapore was to continue to enjoy good, clean government.

It’s silly to pay thieves high salaries to discourage them from stealing. Why employ a thief to begin with?

The notion that public service should be associated with exorbitantly high pay had already been rejected by the public during the NKF-TT Durai saga.

ST wrote:

And if this city gained a reputation worldwide for also being one of the cleanest and greenest, it was because the Prime Minister himself took a personal interest in enhancing the island’s greenery, parks and waterways, long before such environmental consciousness became fashionable.

Surely Singapore’s greenery didn’t begin with Lee Kuan Yew when Singapore’s best hope of a UNESCO listing – our Botanical Gardens was established by the British colonial government in 1859, 100 years before Lee came to power?

ST wrote:

… Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi hailed him as a “far-sighted statesman and a lion among leaders”.
United States President Barack Obama said in a statement: “He was a true giant of history who will be remembered for generations to come as the father of modern Singapore and as one of the great strategists of Asian affairs.”

Both Modi and Obama hardly knew Lee Kuan Yew so their appraisal of Lee couldn’t have been anything more than the regurgitation of popular reports or hearsays that mostly originate from Singapore’s state controlled media. Does Modi or Obama even know who Dr Winsemius is? Obama was probably misinformed because no one would be so stupid as to hail someone who felt anguished at a nation’s independence as its father.

ST wrote:

He had soldiered on with his public duties after retirement, and even after the loss of his wife of 63 years …

Lee’s remaining in office despite supposedly retiring suggests the falseness of his retirement. That he held on to his MP title while hardly performing any constituency work suggests the futility of his so-called soldiering on. Whether he soldiered on for the nation or for his own party is also questionable.

ST wrote:

Summing up his life’s work in his two-part memoirs, The Singapore Story, Mr Lee once revealed how he and his colleagues believed that Malaysian leaders anticipated the day when an independent Singapore would fail and be forced to appeal for readmission to the Federation, on Malaysia’s terms.

“No, not if I could help it,” he once declared … I did not know I was to spend the rest of my life getting Singapore not just to work, but to prosper and flourish.”

That’s another one of Lee Kuan Yew’s self-praise. Just because Lee was in charge doesn’t mean Singapore prospered and flourished because of him. Hong Kong is the best reflection of how Singapore would have turned out without Lee – different but prosperous just the same.

Moreover, our prospering and flourishing was in accordance to the economic plan written by Dr Winsemius whom Lee expressed indebtedness to. Whatever was Lee’s role, he certainly wasn’t the brains behind our prosperity. Unfortunately for many of our lowly educated pioneer generation, the only face they know that they will forever associate our prosperity with is Lee Kuan Yew’s.

Lee Kuan Yew contributed to racial riots

June 5, 2015

The events of 1963-1965 appear to be substantially a clash of temperaments and world views, with consequent misunderstandings among the key players. Lee’s own colleagues tell a story of Lee Kuan Yew in overdrive, aggressively engaging in brinkmanship and pushing the Malaysian experiment to the precipice. Lee found it difficult to exercise self-control in front of a microphone and developed a pattern of making outrageous and inflammatory speeches, which Toh Chin Chye later characterised as anti-Malay. When Lim Kim San, a key cabinet minister during the period was asked by Melanie Chew whether he counseled Lee to tone down his speeches, he replied “Oh yes! We did! But once he got onto the podium in front of the crowd, paah, everything would come out. Exactly what we told him not to say, he would say!” Lee at this time was driving himself to the brink of a breakdown, and his judgment was impaired by a regime of prescription drugs designed to help him cope with the stress. He was not at his best and all his prejudices about Malays and his fears about the future were given a free rein, just at the time when he needed to keep them under strict guard

[Constructing Singapore: Elitism, Ethinicity and the Nation-building Project, Michael D Barr and Zlatko Skrbiš, page 29-30]

… the political ambitions of PAP leaders led by Lee Kuan Yew created a situation that, if not arrested, might inevitably result in a serious Sino-Malay clash.

[Across the Causeway: A Multi-dimensional Study of Malaysia-Singapore Relations, Takashi Shiraishi, page 43]

He (Lee Kuan Yew) was subsequently taken to task in Malaysia for apparently questioning the status of Malays as the indigenous people of Malaysia, angering Malays and endangering the Chinese in Singapore. He was also accused of having aspirations to become Malaysia’s prime minister and of wanting special status for Singapore within Malaysia

[Chronicle of Singapore, 1959-2009: Fifty Years of Headline News, Peter H. L. Lim, page 74]

… Lee Kuan Yew’s own political ambition also contributed to the separation of Singapore from Malaysia.

[A History of South East Asia, Arthur Cotterell, page 346]

… Mr Lee is a highly ambitious man,” the Tunku told Malay leaders in 1966, “he feels Singapore is too small for his aspirations … he wants a bigger stage for his dictatorial performances. Mr Lee has become prouder since the outside world proclaimed him as a wise and clever man. But he is living in a dream world …

[Lee Kuan Yew: The Crucial Years, Alex Josey, page 42-43]

Singapore racial harmony during colonial times

June 5, 2015

• Racial Harmony In Malaya
To those who know their Malaya from one end to the other, no less than to the casual visitor, it is a constant source of wonder how so many different races and communities live and work together in the utmost harmony … we repeat, that the different communities live and work in harmony because the British system of justice and administration enables them to obtain fair play. There are no discriminatory or repressive laws, there are few, if any race prejudices in the bazaars and counting houses, there is nothing to prevent the humblest coolie from rising to great wealth – many indeed have done so …
[The Singapore Free Press and Mercantile Advertiser (1884-1942), 26 July 1935, Page 8]

“It is a pleasing feature of life in Malaya that there is not merely a complete absence of friction but much cordiality in the relations between the different races inhabiting it. It is quite common to find Malays, Chinese and Indian all living the same street in perfect harmony and apparently, with some degree of intimacy.” The Mui-Tsai Commission Report Chapter VIII.
[The Straits Times, 1 March 1937, Page 13]

It makes me happy to see the Chinese and other peoples here co-operating so well with each other.
[The Straits Times, 15 November 1940, Page 11]

• The Malayan Melting-Pot
The Sultan of Perak … “I wish to say to you that Chinese and Malay in the past eighty years before the coming of the Japanese lived side by side in absolute peace. The Chinese lived in the midst of Malays without any trace of fear, and the Chinese also fearlessly and peacefully pursued his vocation in any Malay settlement … Here in Singapore we are constantly impressed by the easy, natural and friendly relationships existing between Eurasians, Straits Chinese, Straits-born Indians and others who went to school together and now meet each other in adult life … Boys – and girls – of the local-born communities who sit side by side in the classrooms of Raffles Institution and St. Joseph’s and St. Andrew’s and the A.C.S., learn to become unconscious of racial differences, to meet on common ground, and to accept each other simply as Singaporeans – not as members of this racial community or that. Naturally this process is more penetrating in the secondary schools than in the elementary ones, because the influence of the school is exerted for a longer period and in years of higher mental awakening …
[The Straits Times, 25 May 1946, Page 4]

• S’pore an ‘example’ of race harmony
Singapore has set an example to the world of racial harmony, said Mr. T. P. F. McNeice, President, in reply to Mr. C. F. J. Ess, at the meeting of the City Council yesterday.
[The Straits Times, 29 September 1951, Page 5]

• Duchess praises ‘one people’ idea
The Duchess of Kent, the first Royal Freeman of the City of Singapore, said yesterday that its people were engaged upon a project of far-reaching significance – the casting into one mould of elements derived from many different cultures. “This plan in itself testifies to the good will and good sense so characteristic of the people of this island,’ she said.
[The Straits Times, 2 October 1952, Page 1]

• Police help island troop to learn sailing
Singapore’s 84th Pulau Tekong Sea-Scout Troop is certainly helping to strengthen the bonds of friendship among Malays and Chinese on the island. It is undoubtedly a Sino-Malay affair for half of its 20 members are drawn from each race. Even the four patrol leaders in the troop are equally divided on a communal basis. Members of each patrol, however, are mixed.
[The Singapore Free Press, 17 July 1953, Page 12]

• Our racial harmony inspiration to bishop
An American Negro bishop said in Singapore yesterday that complete racial harmony among students and teachers in Colony schools was an inspiration to him. He said it proved his theory that if you get people of all races close enough together for them to smile at each other racial pride and prejudices will vanish quickly
[The Straits Times, 30 September 1954, Page 4]

• ‘See yourselves as just one people’ Governor’s advice to teachers
The people of Singapore must not think of themselves in terms of their racial and language loyalties, but as Singaporeans, the Governor, Sir William Goode, said yesterday. Schools must be Singapore schools, not English, Chinese, Malay and Tamil schools … In 1953, he said, English was the only medium of instruction at the college, but today they worked in English, Malay and Chinese. “In this way too the different races in the Colony can be welded into a united people with a common loyalty and a common pride in Singapore and a united determination to work for the good of Singapore.”
[The Straits Times, 12 October 1958, Page 7]

Eighteen American teachers (above) from 11 states left for Bangkok by CPA this morning after a four-day stay here … Prof. Mulder said they were impressed by the racial harmony they had observed in Singapore and had come to know the state much better.
[The Singapore Free Press, 16 July 1959, Page 10]

So many races, but one nation
If a world list were compiled of countries enjoying high degree of inter-racial harmony Singapore would undoubtedly occupy a leading position. Here people of various races work, play and live together happily as one nation. They help each other in time of difficulty. They rejoice in each other’s happiness. And they share each other’s grief. Such is the respect, understanding and goodwill between the Malay, Chinese, Indian, European and other races living here that visitors in Singapore have often praised the State as an example for the rest of the world to follow. The latest visitor to express this view is Mrs. A. Qugley, formerly of the Chicago Tribune, who passed through the State during a tour of the Far East. She said that “the people here must be extremely proud of themselves for the “really great” racial harmony that was evident
[The Singapore Free Press, 6 July 1961, Page 6]