Should Sir Stamford Raffles deserve to be called founder of Singapore?

Essay by ImpalerBugz March 2006

download word file, 1 pages 0.0

Downloaded 16 times

In my opinion, I feel that Raffles does not deserve to be called founder and builder of Singapore. I have a couple of answers to support this.

Firstly, the word "founder" means to establish something or formulate the basis of something. Raffles was not the establisher of Singapore, Sang Nila Utama was. As for the builder of Singapore, Raffles does have a bit of credit, however, some credit is needed to be given to the former Residents of Singapore, Colonel William Farquhar, and Dr John Crawfurd, traders that came to Singapore, and lastly, the Malay or Orang Laut that lived on Singapore before Raffles landed.

Secondly, the Raffles Town Plan. Raffles had the Malay's positioned on the northern part of the Singapore river, the Europeans had the central portion, while the Chinese had the southern part. He drew up the plan because he found out that many immigrants had settled near the Singapore River, growing in a disorderly manner.

This should not have been done because it would not promote racial harmony as the different races lived amongst themselves. Raffles in this way did not build up the racial harmony, but weaken it. Instead, what Raffles should have done is that he should done is that he should have expanded the area around the Singapore River and built more houses. Wouldn't that be another alternative other than seperating the different races?

Thirdly and lastly, his concern for Singapore. Raffles only visited Singapore thrice in the last five years, spending only nine months here. In this way, it showed us that he was not concerned about Singapore. If he was away, he would have at least made some time to visit the island he regards as its "founder". Colonel William Farquhar, from...