Well, what do you think..

Maybe SG will be the capital for Malaysia..

Its hard to say. With the number of Chinese in Singapore, it could have changed the balance of power in Malaysia politically, MCA instead of UMNO could have been the power behind BN. I feel if this was the case, a very different response to the race riots in the 70's is very possible.

Bangsar wouldn't have been the only constituency that PAP won.

Unlikely that Singapore would've been the capital.
Like Tunku said, KL the Washington, Singapore the New York. A very good analogy.
But who cares, now we have ASEAN!!!!

Samy dear, u shouldn't stop living in the past... but if u ask me, I think SG could remain like backwater island of Batam.. and all the port and oil refineries built in Malacca instead or Lumut instead.

Made no sense why all the ships should stop and congest the Straits like now...

I don't think that SG will be like Batam.. but SG wouldn't be as advanced as now.. that's for sure..
For me, if Singapore is stick to Malaysia, the 13th May 69 will occur again and again..

I don't think the race riots would have occurred again and again as per Sam's predictions. Most chinese are pragmatic folks, and like the Msian chinese have responded so, the Bumi policies would ensure that the SG chinese population would leave in droves to seek their livelihoods elsewhere.

SG would certainly never flourish into a logistic hub as it now is, as the Msian govt would concentrate capital investments & oil refineries within the mainland and leave the island of SG to juz pick up any tail end of the shipping business.

One question i have which is not meant to be offensive but rather a honest question : would the Msian govt have had the same visions as SG leaders to come up with the policies to attract MNC presence within Msia and develop the oil refineries/logistic hub that SG is nowadays?? It's easy to govern a small urban space but when you have territories as far flung as Borneo, your vision tends to be scattered... what do u think?

I'd say probably not, without offending anyone, I feel the Malaysian govnts focus would have been elsewhere rather then the development of Singapore. Singapore did not have to deal with the racial riots or the communist threat that Malaysia had. The Malaysian govnt's focus isn't entirely on economics either, it has/had to deal with wealth imbalance in the Malaysian society, and the cost of trying to rectify the imbalance. Malaysia's govnt also involves itself in religion, another drain on the economy (how large I'm not sure). I also feel that to attract investment you need to invest in infrastructure and Malaysia's govnt wouldn't concentrate so much investment to a small area at the expense of the rest of the country.
If Singapore had remained part of Malaysia, I feel it wouldn't be as economically advanced as it is now.

i Dont think s0

umm..

no Singapore, no Temasek and "No Thaksin"

i think ther will be no benefit for msia would get if they're not separated

Capital .... nahhhh.

Singapore will be like .... Penang ... yes, Penang.

But do we need another Penang?

Nahhhhh ........ Kudos for Tunku Abdul Rahman for his guts kicking SG from MY Federation 4 decades ago!

It is a sad story for both Sabah and Sarawak for joining Malaysia. Just look at Brunei and Singapore to see the answer.

Sabah and Sarawak is being raped by Malaya till dry, all the oil and timber from the two states is being used to finance all the failed projects and also to feed all the Umno zealots.

Ask the Iban and Kandazan, they are being marginalized. Now the government even want to make the country into an Islamic state, did Sabah and Sarawak agree to join an Islamic state in the first place?

September 16 is a day for mourning, a day of shame for Malaysia.