Singapore's separation from Malaysia in August 1965 after fewer than 23 months in the Federation has generated much interest — and controversy — in its wake. Explanations of why “merger” failed, and the issues and circumstances that have contributed to the island's “eviction” from Malaysia have since engaged academic analysis and debate — as well as inspired competing interpretations from political leaders and opinion shapers on both sides of the Causeway. Wang Gungwu's remarks, made in the 1966 annual of the Straits Times, that “it will be some time before we have the objectivity and the perspective to find an answer that we can all agree and accept” still appear very much relevant when set against the sharp reaction across the Causeway to the publication in 1998 of The Singapore Story: Memoirs of Lee Kuan Yew, which offered the then Singapore's Senior Minister's personal perspective of Singapore's separation from Malaysia. For Singapore, however, the emotional trauma and crisis of the separation, represented by its Prime Minister's teary “moment of anguish” on national television on 9 August 1965, was arguably a significant political “defining moment” in the making of the young Singapore “nation”. Indeed, as the then Singapore Deputy Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong was to declare during the launch of National Education thirty-two years later in 1997, the “issues which led to separation were fundamental, and remain so today”. Because Singapore stood firm in Malaysia over these fundamental issues, he said, “we suddenly found ourselves out on our own as an independent country, with few means to make a living or defend ourselves”. What were these “fundamental issues” that made political accommodation with the Federation government seemingly impossible — and how significant were they in contributing to the island's sudden and unexpected withdrawal from the Malaysian Federation? Previous attempts to answer such questions were frequently hampered by the closure of the archives on the subject, and scholars had to rely almost exclusively on published public sources. But the recent opening of archives in Britain, Australia, United States, and Singapore, amongst others, and the greater willingness of key players, including the then Singapore Senior Minister, to discuss the previously “sensitive” subject in their writings, have permitted not only a more comprehensive study of the subject than was previously possible, but also an exploration of the meanings of “separation” for the island state.