Singapore was a member state within the Malaysian Federation from 1963 until 1965, at which time it separated from Malaysia and became an independent republic. Many historians consider the separation to be an expulsion of Singapore by Malaysia. Milne writes: “...the Malaysian government insisted on 'separation,' which in effect was equivalent to expulsion."[1] Fletcher is unequivocal on this point as well: “Two basic premises concerning the [Singapore-Malaysia] split must be established at the outset. First, the break decision was made by the [Malaysian] Tunku alone. Second, the leaders of Singapore did not desire the separation of their state from Malaysia.” [2]
This is not universally accepted, however, with Lionel Wee noting that: “…the post-separation discourse was also characterized by disagreements over which country was actually responsible for the separation” and quoting a contemporaneous Straits Times news article which contains a dialogue between the Tunku’s deputy and Singaporean politician (and laterPresident) C. V. Devan Nair:
“…Tun Abdul Razak [deputy to the Tunku] denied Singapore had been 'ejected'. The entire Singapore Cabinet had signed the separation agreement, he said, and the absence of the 12 PAP [Singapore’s ruling party] members from today's session indicated that they were not protesting
.…Singapore was being 'ejected' from Malaysia, he (Devan Nair) said. 'I say ejected because I know Singapore has been put in a situation where it has no choice but to accept the ultimatum presented to it by the Central Government” [3]
Singapore’s official history site makes it more clear that the exit was negotiated to an extent by both parties (“…Leading the negotiations for Singapore was then Finance Minister Goh Keng Swee, and for Malaysia, Tun Razak.”), [4] albeit potentially under some degree of compulsion.
On balance, it seems at least arguable to say that Malaysia "kicked-out" Singapore having failed to come to a good integration of the state with other parts of the Federation.
[1] Milne, R. S. “Singapore’s Exit from Malaysia; the Consequences of Ambiguity.” Asian Survey 6, no. 3 (1966): 182. [https://doi.org/10.2307/2642221](https://doi.org/10.2307/2642221).
[2] Fletcher, Nancy McHenry. “The Separation of Singapore From Malaysia.” Data paper (Cornell University, Southeast Asia Program), no. 73 (July, 1969): 1.
[3] Wee, Lionel. “Divorce before Marriage in the Singapore–Malaysia Relationship: The Invariance Principle at Work.” Discourse & Society 12, no. 4 (2001): 537. http://www.jstor.org/stable/42888382.
[4] National Library Board of Singapore. “Singapore Separates from Malaysia and Becomes Independent,” [History SG]. https://eresources.nlb.gov.sg/history/events/dc1efe7a-8159-40b2-9244-cdb078755013.
Apartheid South Africa created Bantustans which it planned to turn into independent entities and 4 (out of 10) were given independence between 1976 and 1981. South Africa also lobbied for their international recognition, which didn't happen. Main purpose of Bantustans was to serve as areas where non whites would be centered, either due to already living there or moved from elsewhere to create white majority areas in other parts of South Africa (Bantu Authorities Act, 1951, series of Groups Area Acts passed between 1951 and 1966) and transfer citizenship (and so rights) of non whites from South Africa to these new states. (Promotion of Bantu Self-government Act passed in 1959, Bantu Homelands Citizenship Act passed in 1970 and Bantu Homelands Constitution Act passed in 1971 which was used to grant independence to 4 Bantustans).
General consensus was that South Africa didn't plan to turn these lands into fully independent states but rather that they were part of apartheid policies, (see UNGA resolution A/RES/31/6A passed in 1976)
Famously, the Republic of Singapore - today one of the richest countries measured GDP per capita and a classical example of the developmental state - owes its independence to being kicked out of the Malaysian Federation in 1965!
A cursory reading of the treaty between the central government of Malaysia and the state government of Singapore ( Agreement Relating to the Separation of Singapore from Malaysia as an Independent and Sovereign State (1965) ) might give the impression that independence was granted. To understand why the claim "Singapore was kicked out" still holds water, we must establish three facts:
The government and/or the people of the State of Singapore (Malaysia being a Federation) did not wish to leave said federation;
The Federal Government intended to force Singapore to leave; and
A recognition of Independence is, under international law and convention, the formal and public acknowledgment that a government's authority and responsibility ends at a certain geographical boundary, at which sovereignty is assumed by some other legal entity.
Therefore, "granting" Independence of an area - a forfeiture of sovereignty - against the desire of the people in that area could be read as synonymous with "kicking out".
Part 3) is important because the term "granted independence" is a loaded term, usually associated with some sort of secession movement. But states operating within the international system of clearly defined borders that no longer accepts the principle of Terra Nullis means that in theory some international actor must be exercising sovereignty over every landmass.
So before I go and dig out all the sources on Singapore, could you clarify if you would accept that a recognition of Independence can still be part of a legalistic process of "kicking out a part of their territory", or if you are only looking for cases in which governments excludes the territory from their realm of sovereignty (public amenities, taxation, defence, etc ) but retains de jure sovereignty over the territory, at least in the eyes of the international community since they did not issue a slip of paper granting Independence to it?