¹ Some examples are Turnbull, C.M., A History of Singapore, 1819–1975, Kuala Lumpur, 1977Google Scholar; Peritz, R., “The Evolving Politics of Singapore: A Study of Trends and Issues”, PhD Thesis, University of Pennsylvania, 1964Google Scholar; Clutterbuck, R., Riot and Revolution in Singapore and Malaya, 1945–63, London, 1973Google Scholar; Wah, Yeo Kim, Political Development in Singapore, 1945–1955, Singapore, 1973Google Scholar; Sopiee, Mohamed Noordin, From Malayan Union to Singapore Separation: Political Unification in the Malaysia Region, Kuala Lumpur, 1974Google Scholar; Bellows, Thomas J., The People's Action Party of Singapore: Emergence of a Dominant Party System, New Haven, 1970Google Scholar; Lian, Pang Cheng, Singapore's People's Action Party, Singapore, 1971Google Scholar; Drysdale, John, Singapore: Struggle for Success, Singapore, 1984Google Scholar; Osborne, Milton E., Singapore and Malaysia , Ithaca, 1964Google Scholar; Hanna, W.A., The Formation of Malaysia, New York, 1964Google Scholar; Fletcher, Nancy, The Separation of Singapore from Malaysia, Ithaca, 1969Google Scholar; Chee, Fong Sip, The PAP Story: The Pioneering Years, Singapore, 1980Google Scholar; Chee, Chan Heng, The Dynamics of One Party Dominance, Singapore, 1976Google Scholar; Kheng, Cheah Boon, The Masked Comrades, Singapore, 1979Google Scholar; Hui, Lee Ting, The Communist Organisation in Singapore, 1948–1966, Singapore, 1976Google Scholar; Hui, Lee Ting, “The Communist Open United Front Struggle in Singapore, 1954–1966”, unpublished PhD Thesis, National University of Singapore, 1984Google Scholar; Wilson, H.E., Social Engineering in Singapore: Educational Policies and Social Change, 1819–1972, Singapore, 1978Google Scholar; Gopinathan, S., Towards a National System of Education in Singapore, Singapore, 1974Google Scholar. For a bibliographical survey of writings on Singapore, see CM. Turnbull, pp. 335–62.

² For instance, see Josey, A., Lee Kuan Yew, Singapore, 1968Google Scholar; George, T.S., Lee Kuan Yew's Singapore, London, 1973Google Scholar; Josey, A., David Marshall's Political Interlude, Singapore, 1982.Google Scholar Some memoirs are useful: Thomas, Francis, Memoirs of a Migrant, Singapore, 1972Google Scholar; Geek, Yap Pheng, Scholar, Banker, Gentleman Soldier, Singapore, 1982Google Scholar; Bee, Thio Chan, Extraordinary Adventures of an Ordinary Man, London, 1977.Google Scholar

³ Chee, Chan Heng, A Sensation of Independence: A Political Biography of David Marshall, Singapore, 1984, p. 1Google Scholar (henceforth, this book will be cited in the text).

⁴ For example, the bush-jacket incident, Nicoll's lecture to Marshall, the incident of the Chief Minister's office are discussed on pp. 101–103, and the red ink/green ink incident on p. 448, J. Drysdale.

⁵ For discussion, see Yeo Kim Wah, pp. 190–95; R. Clutterbuck, pp. 79–83; Lee Ting Hui, “The Communist Open United Front Struggle”, pp. 126–35; J. Drysdale, pp. 73–76; H. E. Wilson, pp. 164–74.

⁶ For discussion, see R. Clutterbuck, pp. 106–107; Yeo Kim Wah, pp. 63–64; Marshall, David, Singapore's Struggle for Nationhood, 1945–1959, Singapore, 1971.Google Scholar

⁷ For discussion, see Yeo Kim Wah, pp. 242–45; R. Clutterbuck, pp. 108–111; .Jiang, Goh Hwee, “The Hock Lee Bus Riots, 1955”, B. A. Hons. Academic Exercise, University of Singapore, 1973; J. Drysdale, pp. 105–115; Lee Ting Hui, “The Communist Open United Front”, pp. 205–214.Google Scholar

⁸ For discussion, see Yeo Kim Wah, pp. 167–72, 200–201; J. Drysdale, pp. 116–25; H. E. Wilson, pp.188–223.

⁹ There is less discussion on the general strike in June 1955. See Yeo Kim Wah, pp. 245–47; Lee Ting Hui, “The Communist Open United Front Struggle”, pp. 214–19.

¹⁰ C.M. Turnbull, p. 260.

¹¹ For discussion, see J. Drysdale, pp. 126–29; Yeo Kim Wah, pp. 62–67,83–84; R. Peritz, pp. 199–202.

¹² For discussion, see R. Clutterbuck, p. 111; Yan, Ho Tai, “The Origins and Application of the Internal Security Laws of Singapore, 1945–1977”, B. A. Hons. Academic Exercise, University of Singapore, 1978, pp. 32–41.Google Scholar

¹³ For discussion, see Yeo Kim Wah, pp. 166–72; H. E. Wilson, pp. 191–223.

¹⁴ For discussion, see Yeo Kim Wah, pp. 135–53.

¹⁵ For discussion, see Yeo Kim Wah, pp. 83–86; Dass, D. S., “Malayanisation: Malayan Civil Service, 1945–58”, B. A. Hons. Academic Exercise, University of Malaya in Singapore, 1961Google Scholar; Meow, Seah Chee, “Bureaucratic Evolution and Political Change in an Emerging Nation: A Case Study of Singapore”, unpublished PhD Thesis, Victoria University of Manchester, 1971, ch. 2.Google Scholar

¹⁶ Then Mee, Lian, “The Singapore Municipality, 1946–1959”, B. A. Hons. Academic Exercise, University of Malaya in Singapore, 1960, chs. II—III.Google Scholar

¹⁷ For discussion, see Yeo Kim Wah, pp. 116–17; Tregonning, K.G., “Malaya 1955”, Australian Quarterly, vol. 27, no. 2, June 1956.Google Scholar

¹⁸ For discussion, see Singh, Navtej, “Singapore's Fight for Self-Government under David Marshall, 1955–1956”, B. A. Hons. Academic Exercise, University of Singapore, 1973, pp. 43–51; Mohamed Noordin Sopiee.pp. 112–15.Google Scholar

¹⁹ For discussion, see Navtej Singh, pp. 51–64; R. Clutterbuck, pp. 112–15; J. Drysdale, pp. 139–49; Great Britain, Colonial Office, Singapore Constitutional Conference, 1956, Command Paper 9777, London, 1956.

²⁰ Note that in evaluating the original contributions of this book, Hui, Lee Ting, “The Communist Open United Front Struggle” is not taken into consideration as this PhD thesis was approved at the end of 1984.Google Scholar

²¹ Straits Times 13.4.55.

²² Straits Times 20.4.55. Marshall admitted that Richard's allegation was true. Straits Times 21.4.55.

²³ See Special Branch report on Lim Chin Siong Part 3, Folio (114) and on David Marshall Part 3, Folio (163), cited in Lee Ting Hui, “The Communist Open United Front Struggle”, p. 298.

²⁴ Ibid.

²⁵ Tamil Murasu 16.4.55 in Weekly Digest of Vernacular Press 15/1955.

²⁶ Cited in Daily Digest of Vernacular Press 155/1955.

²⁷ The squabbles over public office were reported by nearly all Singapore newspapers, and both Marshall and the dissidents admitted that the cause of the squabbles was the allocation of ministerial appointments. Eventually late in 1955 Mohamed Sidek, Mak Pak Shee and Tan Theng Chiang were appointed junior ministers, Lee Choon Eng was dropped, and the last post held over till it was offered to M.P.D. Nair early in 1956. See Straits Times 9 and 11.11.55; the allocation of ministerial appointments was recorded in the Minutes of Meeting of Coalition Ministers, Legislative Assemblymen, Labour Front Central Committee and Policy-Making Body, 8.9.55 and 16.9.55 (Labour Front Records); Fajar no. 25, 30.11.55; Sin Chew Jit Poh 3.9.55 in Daily Digest of Vernacular Press 199/55; Tamil Murasu 7.10.55 in Daily Digest of Vernacular Press 288/55; Utusan Melayu 1.11.55 in Daily Digest of Vernacular Press 248/55; Nanyang Siang Pau 11.11.55 in Daily Digest of Vernacular Press 257/55.

²⁸ For discussion, see Yeo Kim Wah, pp. 254–60.

²⁹ J.Drysdale, pp. 143–44.

³⁰ Ibid., p. 144.

³¹ Yeo Kim Wah, p. 267.

³² J. Drysdale, pp. 124–25.

³³ Lee Ting Hui, “The Communist Open United Front…”, pp. 136,185, 233 and 287–88.

³⁴ J. Drysdale, p. 170.

³⁵ Lee Ting Hui, “The Communist Open United Front”, pp. 358–59.

³⁶ According to Lee Ting Hui, this information is recorded in Police Intelligence Journal no. 4/1957, para. 57A cited in ibid., p. 436.

³⁷ This memorandum was published in full in Josey, A., Asia Newsletter, supplement, November 1953.Google Scholar

³⁸ This Fajar editorial article is reproduced in Ministry of Culture, Singapore, Singapore: An Illustrated History, 1941–1984, Singapore, 1984, p. 146.Google Scholar

³⁹ J. Drysdale, pp. 206–207.

⁴⁰ Ibid., p. 160.

⁴¹ Ibid., pp. 169,198–99.

⁴² Interview with Francis Thomas, October 1967.

⁴³ The most detailed discussion on the expansion of the pro-communist movement during Marshall's time is found in Lee Ting Hui, “The Communist Open United Front”, Ch. III; see also Yeo Kim Wah, pp. 248–50.

⁴⁴ J. Drysdale, p. 138.

⁴⁵ R. Clutterbuck, p. 141; Lee Ting Hui, “The Communist Open United Front”, pp. 329–30.

⁴⁶ Generally PAP leaders believed that Marshall was unable to govern effectively and that as Chief Minister he was chased “from pillar to post”. The most adverse judgement of Marshall was made by Goh Keng Swee in the Legislative Assembly in December 1961. For details, see The Report of the Committee of Privileges, First Legislative Assembly, L. A. 12 of 1962, Singapore, 1962Google Scholar

⁴⁷ For discussion, see Yeo Kim Wah, Ch. 3.

⁴⁸ The People's Constitution (published by the AMCJA-PUTERA), Kuala Lumpur, 1947.Google Scholar

⁴⁹ Eber, J., Memorandum on Counter-Proposals for the Future Consideration of PMCJA 1947 (Tan Cheng Lock Papers).Google Scholar

⁵⁰ Reportofthe Committee for the Reconstitution of the Singapore Legislative Council, Singapore, 1946, pp. 17–25.Google Scholar

⁵¹ Straits Times 21.5.49; Letter from Colonial Secretary to Tan Cheng Lock 22.7.50; Singapore Standard 24.6.52; for a brief discussion of this question, see Wah, Yeo Kim, “Political Development in Singapore, 1945–55”, M.A. Thesis, University of Singapore, 1967, pp. 144–46.Google Scholar

⁵² J. Eber, Memorandum on Counter-Proposals for the Future Consideration of PMCJA 1947 (Tan Cheng Lock Papers). Eber's proposal was not accepted. In the People's Constitution the official language advocated was Malay.

⁵³ Straits Budget 10.7.47. An interesting survey conducted by Nan Chiau, the organ of the New Democratic Youth League, claimed that the vast majority preferred multi-lingualism to English. Economist 9.8.47.

⁵⁴ Josey, A., Asia Newsletter, Supplement, November 1953.Google Scholar

⁵⁵ In proposing this policy Governor Clementi stated that it aimed “to Malayanize the children of the permanent population i.e. to make them true citizens of Malaya”, and “to unite all races in Malaya who have adopted Malaya as their country and who have no other country in a common bond of sympathy, goodwill and Malayan patriotism”. Tan Cheng Lock fully endorsed this “nation-building” aim of the government that sought “to aid and encourage the progressive development of a United Malaya … and the spontaneous evolution … of a truly Malayan consciousness”. Tan however, opposed the proposed Malay-based education policy. See Proceedings of the Straits Settlements Legislative Council, 1934, p. 18, end. in CO273, vol. 600, file no. 33104, 1934.Google Scholar

⁵⁶ Straits Budget 2.1.47.

⁵⁷ Colony of Singapore, The Ten Years Education Plan, Singapore, 1947.Google Scholar

⁵⁸ Proceedings of the Singapore Legislative Council, 15 June 1948, p. A20Google Scholar; Ibid., 15.3.49, p. B78.

⁵⁹ J. Drysdale, p. 95.

⁶⁰ MCP's support for income tax, Indian Daily Mail 3.9.47; MIC's support, Ibid.., 30.8.47; UMNO's support, Straits Budget 11.9.47; support of unions see Ibid., 28.8.47 and 25.12.47; for discussion, see Yew, Lawrence, “Singapore's Response to the Introduction of Income Tax, 1946–48”, B. A. Hons. Academic Exercise, University of Singapore, 1974, Ch. IV.Google Scholar

⁶¹ Colony of Singapore, Annual Report of Singapore 1955, Singapore, 1956, p. 3.Google Scholar

⁶² Ibid.,1956, p. 2.

⁶³ Ibid., 1957, p. 4.

⁶⁴ Ibid., 1955, p. 1.

⁶⁵ Straits Times 17.3.55 and 11.4.55; Weekly Digest of Vernacular Press 5/55, 7/55, 9/55 and 11/55.

⁶⁶ For a discussion of the electoral law between 1948 and 1955, see Yeo Kim Wah, pp. 251–54. The franchise was extended to British Protected Subjects born in Malaya and the British Borneo territories late in 1948. For discussion, see Proceedings of the Singapore Legislative Council, 15 June 1948, pp. B102–114, and 19 October 1948, pp. B333–34.Google Scholar