i think that raffles is the founder of singapore as he signed the treaty, besides there is a statue of raffles in singapore but none of faquhar's -chen yue
I think Raffles is the founder of Singapore as he signed the treaty with the Sultan and Temenggong. He solved the trouble of signing the legal papers (treaty) with them and therefore theoretically founded Singapore.
However, Farqhuar did contribute more as a pioneer.
Faquhar is the founder of singapore as he put in the most effort to develope singapore. Raffles did not really do much and he did not care about much about the locals while Faquhar knew more about the people.
i think raffles is the real founder of singapore as he was the one who had seen singapore's potential at first and he signed the treaty and obviously there is a reason for raffles to be remembered but not farquhar. -yexuan
faquhar is the founder of singapore as is contributed the most to singapore. unlike raffles, he knew more about locals, and he did things to please the locals.
Raffles signed the treaty that founded Singapore. Without it, there would not have been a British Settlement there. Farquhar did indeed bring Singapore into being a well-known port, but he allowed vices like opium, slavery, prostitution etc. to continue. Raffles howevere, was teh one who established Singapore's first school and hospital for the good of the local population, as well as the penal code and Legislative Council of Singapore, giving it a legal and political system.
I think that Raffles and Farqhuar are both founders of Singapore. Raffles saw the potential of the island and signed the treaty with Tengku Hussein, who they recognised as the Sultan of Johor. This Shows that Raffles had cunning and determination, determination to get Singapore as his island. Farqhuar was sent by Raffles to run the island in his place while he was in Bencoolen. Farqhuar solved the pest issue through wit and appealing to the settlers interests. He also allowed prostitution, gambling and slavery, which in the eyes of Raffles, was horrifying, as he knew that the immigrants needed these services so they would not be lonely. He set up a small police that, though small, it could keep some law and order. They both did well in the founding of Singapore, so I believe they should both be credited as founders.
Even though raffles indeed signed the famous treaties rendering singapore under british control, a pen does not a founder make. Farquhar's network of contacts gave Singapore its initial clients, without which we surely could not have made it through those dark times. Also, his wise policies, including the setting up of a police force and a widespread pest control program likely stabilised the colony, which would have made it seem more attractive to settlers in those times.
Sean Farquhar rawks! PS. Farquhar was the one who SPOTTED singapore in the first place.
I think that there is a lot of eveidence that a lot of 'someones' could be the founder od singapore if argued properly. Personally i think that there will be more than founder,as opposed to the one mighty founder...it could very well have been,well,the settlers in the early years that had established Singapore. in the first place. Firstly,the definition of founder is that it is someone who establishes or recognise a country of its potential,than develope it. Therefore,if considered carefully,Raffles IS not the founder,if not directly. As for Farquar,welll,he did build the base for the world to konw us Singapore,but still,it is still the early settlers...as mentioned above. My conclusion:There is no real founder. ---------'''--------'''---------'''3.14159265357932384626433832795028841971693993751058209749445923078164062862089986280348253421170679
I feel that the answer to this question depends on the definition of "founder". dictionary.com defines the trem "founder" as a person who founds or establishes. Following this definition, the founder of Singapore should be Sir Stamford Raffles as he was the one who established the foundation of Singapore. However, in my opinion, I think that there is no single founder of Singapore. Three people should be considered as the founders of Singapore- Raffles, Faquhar and Crawfurd. I would like to quote from http://www.scholars.nus.edu.sg/post/singapore/history/chew/founders.html . Singapore was fortunate in her three early pioneer administrators: Raffles, a man of extraordinary vision, but for whom Singapore would never have existed; Farquhar, who by his energy, good sense and courage, nursed the infant settlement through its first dangerous years; and Crawfurd, shrewd and sensible, with his feet planted firmly on the ground, who converted into reality Raffles' most practical dreams. [...] Despite this long association, Crawfurd's name, like Farquhar's, has faded almost into obscurity, and of Singapore's pioneers only Raffles' fame and reputation have grown over the years...." -Anlong
It is quite obvious that Raffles founded it. But finding it does not mean he is the founder. A founder is a person who finds as well as establishes a country. Raffles only founded it. Farquhar was the one who established it. He got rid of pests, worked together with the malay chief in establishing it even further. He also helped to negotiate the treaty. All Raffles did was come back to Singapore for only one or two times to see how Farquhar was doing. In the end, he even fired Farquhar thinking that the way Farquhar was organizing "Singapura" wrongly. In fact all the projects that he had done in South-East Asia had failed except for Singapore. This is because Farquhar was the one establishing it. If not for Farquhar, there would not be the Singapore present today. But on the other hand, if Raffles had not come to Singapore and chosen it as the "perfect" seaport, Farquhar would not have been here. This means that both Sir Thomas Stamford Raffles and William Farquhar played a part in the founding of Singapore. From my point of view, I think they both are the founders of Singapore. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ HARDIK KISHOR M08101 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
It is quite difficult to give an objective view on this situation as it really falls back on how one defines 'founder'. However, I strongly believe Raffles founded Singapore.
Firstly, let us take a look at the definition of 'found' from Dictionary.com: 1.to set up or establish on a firm basis or for enduring existence: to found a new publishing company. 2. to lay the lowest part of (a structure) on a firm base or ground: a house founded on solid rock. 3. to base or ground (usually fol. by on or upon): a story founded on fact. 4. to provide a basis or ground for.
Raffles had made the British sign the treaty with the Sultan and Temmengong, thus allowing them to set up a settlement on Singapore. This set the foundation of Singapore's development, and modern Singapore would not have been possible without that treaty.
Farquhar, however, only developed the island. He did not create the foundation that allowed the British to set up a settlement in there, so he cannot be defined as a 'founder'. However, credit should go to him for pulling in immigrants to Singapore, without which we would not be here today.
In my own opinion, Faqhuar is the real founder of Singapore. He did all the work and all the troubles and go through thick and thin with Singapore. Although it is Raffles who discovered Singapore, he had a selfish interest. He wanted to use it as habour which catered to British. He was not with Singapore when Singapore was in trouble. He was serving Bristish at that time. To him, British was his hometown and where he belonged. Singapore was a place for him to make money. Whereas, Faqhuar was the one who went through thick and thin with Singapore and he understood what Singaporean was going through at that time. :)
Personally I feel that Raffles should be the founder of Singapore. Raffles was the person to choose Singapore as a trading port and signed the treaty with the Temenggong and the Sultan to gain permission to set up a trading port in Singapore. However, Raffles left for Bencoolen after that, leaving Farquhar behind to build up the new trading port. Farquhar had faced many problems and had even sent several letters to Raffles, asking for help but some of them were not returned by Raffles. Thus, Farquhar had to solve the problems on his own and built up Singapore from scratch, thus his merit was no lesser than Raffles. Later, Raffles returned to Singapore and brought Singapore another step further. If not for Raffles, his ambitions and far-sightedness, Singapore would not have been as it is today, but if not for Farquhar who had solved the problems Singapore had faced in its early critical stage, Raffles would not have been able to bring Singapore this far.
In my opinion, I think that Stanford Raffles is the founder of Singapore as he was the one to take the initiative to travel here and find a place that is very good for trading and not under Dutch control to trade, thus he came to Singapore, which has excellent harbour, location and supply of drinkable water.
He was the one to sign the first treaty which opened Singapore to trade with British. If Raffles did not come here, there would not be Singapore at all. He also went to plan out for the development of Singapore and left Farquhar in-charge. Although he left Farquhar in charge, he supervised Farquhar and visited Singapore thrice (the last visit lasted 8 months). Even though Farquhar was the one to set up Singapore, there wouldn’t be any Singapore if Raffles did not sign the treaty which led to other treaties which made Singapore be a colony with Britain. Thus Farquhar could be the co-founder to Singapore.
I think that Faquhar should be the founder of Singapore. While Faquhar was building up Singapore in the first few years, Raffles was away most of the time and only came back for several times. He contributed only a little to the development of Singapore
I think Raffles founded Singapore as he was the one who negotiate with the Sultan and Temenggong to allow the British to set up a settlement in Singapore. If it wasn't for Raffles, Singapore wouldn't have existed. He also had plans for Singapore that help to make it what it is today.
In my opinion, I think William Farquhar is the founder of Singapore. This is because he was the one who established Singapore and developed it during its infant years. Some examples are:
1)He set up a police force to lower the crime rates in the country.
2)He also paid people for each rat klilled. This helped to get rid of the pests, so that the country will be cleaner and not as vulnerable to diseases.
Raffles signed the treaty, so that Singapore would be recognized as a full colony under the British. However,he only visited Singapore thrice and left Singapore to be run by Farquhar after that.
Farquhar stayed in Singapore longer than Raffles, and thus understand the people living here better. If it was Raffles who run the place, he might not have done a better job than Farquhar.
Furthermore, it stated on Farquhar's tomb stone that he was the founder of Singapore.
In my opinion, Raffles, Farquhar, Crawfurd and the pioneers all contributed in some way or another to the founding of Singapore. The pioneers inhabited Singapore and without them, not many other people or traders would be attracted to a small trading post as they would rather go to a more established one to barter with their goods.
As for Crawfurd, he continued building the foundations for early Singapore. He was more decisive than Farquhar and perhaps those decisions he made were beneficial to Singapore. As the second Resident of Singapore, he expanded on the intitial foundations of the island and also signed the Anglo-Dutch treaty to officially make Singapore a British possession
Farquhar had the unenviable task of building up Singapore from scratch. Firstly, he cleared land and set up huts. He also attracted merchants and traders from Melacca, ensuring that there was also enough food to sustain the inhabitants of the island. Farquhar set up a small police force to deal with violence. To deal with pests, he offered money for every rat or centipede killed. However, Farquhar disobeyed some parts of Raffles' orders and he also allowed vices like opium, gambling, prostitution and slavery. When Raffles left the island, Farquhar was left on his own to think of solutions to solve the many problems that arose from the initial building of this trading settlement.Although Farquhar played a major part in buliding up early Singapore, he was dismissed by Raffles for going lightly on vices and disobeying his orders.
In my opinion, I strongly feel that Raffles played the most instrumental part in the establishment of Singapore. He signed the treaty with the elder son of the Sultan of Johore to allow the British to set up a trading settlement in Singapore. This was the first step in building the settlement. Although he only visited Singapore thrice after signing the treaty and leaving, he gave orders to Farquhar to build Singapore according to his instructions and Raffles also drew up the initial town plan to allocate living space and land to the different races. Without Raffles' signing of the treaty, Crawfurd and Farquhar would not have played a part in the setting up of Singapore. Raffles also set up the initial legislature and law in Singapore.
I conclude that all 4 of the above parties played a part in the setting up of Singapore as a trading settlement. Without any of them, Singapore would not be what it is today.
I think that Raffles, Farquhar and the pioneers all played a part. Raffles saw the potential of Singapore and signed the treaty that to build up a British settlement in Singapore. He also banned prostitution and gambling. The laws set up by him are quite similar to what it is today too. Farquhar was employed by Raffles to run Singapore and he solved many problems early Singapore faced. In fact, the first batch of immigrants in Singapore are invited by Farquhar from Malacca and Farquhar made the effort to let traders passing by know the existence of Singapore. Raffles' far sightedness, ambition; Farquhar's understanding of Southeast Asia,practical ways of running Singapore and the hard work of the pioneers, brought Singapore through its hardest development stages. Thus, I think that credit should be shared among them.
In my opinion, I feel that those who had helped to establish Singapore in one way or another are considered as the founder of Singapore as there are many meanings for the term 'FOUNDER' For instance, Raffles discovered Singapore and saw her potential. He also signed the treaty with the Temenggong. Hence, without Raffles, Singapore is probably still a 'sleepy fishing village'. As for Faquhar, he was the one who helped rule Singapore when Raffles was away. Also, he attracted traders from other parts of the world to Singapore. Without Faquhar, Singapore would not have been a successful trading settlement. Thus, I feel that whoever the founder of Singapore is, is not really important as what really matters is who helped established the settlement, in any sorts of ways.
In my opinion, both Raffles and Farquhar are considered founders of Singapore. Singapore would not have been what it is today if either of them had not been there to help establish it. Raffles did the crucial job of signing the treaty with the Sultan and Temenggong. He was ambitious and saw Singapore's potentials. As for Farquhar, he played the role of supporting and helping Singapore through the toughest and darkest times during the first few years. He put in great efforts to develop Singapore. Without him, Singapore might not have integrated from a "sleeping fishing village" to a thriving trading settlement. Also, it actually depends on the real definition of "founder", as people have various opinions as to what actually defines it. So yea, I'm more towards the neutral side(:
In my opinion, Raffles founded Singapore. He was far-sighted and he had a vision of what Singapore would become. He chose Singapore. Without Raffles, Singapore would not have existed.
Raffles also contributed to the development of Singapore by building schools & hospitals, and developing major centres in Singapore, into business hubs. He also planned out the structure of Singapore, such as the town plan, the legislature and the focus of Singapore's economy- trading. Without this, Singapore would have been greatly disorganised and there would be a lack of rule and order.
On the otherhand, although Farquhar did solve a lot of Singapore's starting problems, interacted with the people and attracted immigrants to Singapore, he did not plan out Singapore's structure and the layout of Singapore. He most probably only carried out his duties under orders. However, it is undeniable that he contributed a lot to Singapore's overall development.
I think stamford raffles was the one who founded singapore as he was the first person to have the idea of colonizing singapore. He also was the one who signed the treaty to let the british use the port and was the one who agreed on the money to be given to singapore for the use of the port.
i think it should be farquhar as he was the one who nurtured Singapore when it was 'young' and he solved all the problems Singapore was facing that time.
uh i think that raffles and farquhar were both founders of singapore as they both did their part and singapore would not be what it is today without either of them. -cheryl m08103
I think that Raffles was the founder of Singapore, being the person who signed the treaty,although both Raffles and Crawfurd(or Crawford...w/e) and Farquhar had contributed to the growth of Singapore Without Raffles, Singapore would probably not have been noticed in the first place. Without Farquhar, Singapore would not have made it through its early years, when Raffles left Singapore. Without Crawfurd, Singapore would not have prospered.
I think Raffles should be the founder of Singapore as he chose Singapore as a trading port and signed the treaty in 1819. Moreover, he did all the plans and Farquar only followed what Raffles said and established Singapore. After that when Raffles came back from Bencoolen, he brought a step further in establishing Singapore. Thus, Farquar should not be the founder of Singapore and Raffles is.
----------------------------------- Yeo Yao Rui (22) M08103 -----------------------------------
After the debate, I think that Raffles founded Singapore with the help of William Faquhar as the one conducting the work. So I think that both of them did the most.
I personally feel that raffles was the one who founded singapore because basically, he signed the treaty with the Sultan of Johor and the Temeggong. He also provided Faquhar the long-term plans he had for singapore. If he couldn't stay on the island throughtout, it is not a surprise as he had a position and had other plans. Naturally, he wouldn't have stayed on the island. That's why he put Faquhar in charge of Singapore while he was away. Faquhar on the other hand, he was a resident on the island, and had no other duties to fufil outside of the island. Raffles was also the one who started free trade in Singapore. Although Faquhar was already a resident in Singapore before Raffles came, he failed to see the potential in Singapore as a trading settlement. Therefore, Raffles was the founder of Singapore.
Personally, i think that Raffles is the founder of Singapore as he was the one who gave the foresight of developing this island. Although Farquhar did contribute a lot in the development of singapore, he was merely carrying out Raffles' orders and should be termed as one of the pioneers, but not the founder. Raffle's was the one who started free trade in Singapore, which was one of the main contrbuting factors to singapore's Prosperity in its early days. Although Farquhar did contribute a lot to Singapore by pulling in traders.
Therefore, i think raffles should be the founder of Singapore.
I think that Major William Faquhar, was the founder of Singapore as Sir Stamford Raffles barely did not, "chu li" at all while Faquhar did most of the tough part durign the early years.
I feel that Farquhar is the founder of Singapore. Although it was Raffles who signed the treaty, it was farquhar who negotiated it. After the signing of the treaty, raffles left for bencoolen, leaving burdens to farquhar. raffles only gave farquhar plans of what he needed to do. It was farquhar who actually carried out and materialise raffles' dreams. farquhar invited people from malacca to come over to trade and got the settlement started. farquhar met with several problems and tried to turn to raffles for help but raffles was barely contactable. hence, farquhar handed the problems all by himself. due to his good contacts in malacca, farquhar got necessaties to be sailed down to singapore from malacca. Hence, i feel that farquhar had played a very good part in building the settlement and he should be the founder of singapore.
HII!! I think the founder as Singapore is founded by Raffles as he signed the treaty and he did give instructions to Farquhar.
But because Raffles did not give Farquhar enough money,he could only resort to allowing gambling dens.
Faquhar only stayed there to carry out the instructions.But Farquhar did most of the stuff in Singapore's begining.So he was more like a caring mother to it.(LOL)
Raffles was the one who spotted Singapore and he was the one who thought of brilliant solutions to get permission to sign the treaty. Technically, he was the true owner of Singapore and he was the actual founder. Raffles made several plans and ideas to change Singapore and further develop her. You could say that Raffles was the “mastermind” behind everything. Raffles provided neccessaties to help in the construction like money, food and materials. Withoiut him, Singapore would not have become a flourishing city like today. He helped get Singapore this far through his many thoughts of building trading ports, schools and many other places. However, he did not do this alone. Raffles’ did not really carry out these plans himself. Farquhar played an important role in the building up of Singapore. Farquhar was left alone to do the manual part in building up Singapore and he overran all the administrative work. Raffles', however, did nothing as he left Singapore after signing the treaty. Farquhar single handedly had to make Singapore more well known to traders and other villagers. He also needed many labourers to run the city. Using his knowledge and communication skills, he managed to get many settlers and traders to come to Singapore. This played a very important role in the history of Singapore. Farquhar, without the help of Raffles, solved several problems in Singapore. For example, he solved food shortage problems by spreading the news to Malacca, whose traders brought products down. Also, by setting up a small police force, Farquhar solved crime and disorder partially. By offering a cash reward for every pest killed, he managed to eliminate the infestation of rats and centipedes. As for Crawfurd, in 1824, he signed a treaty which made Singapore a British colony. He also set up a court for local cases.
As for the question who is the real founder of Singapore, I feel that the word "founder" can be interpreted by two different meanings, "the person who established the settlement" or "someone who helps in the growth of the country politically, economically and socially". Raffles was the one who established Singapore and so according to the former, he founded Singapore. However, Farquhar was the one who developed Singapore into what we currently are and so according to the latter, he should be regarded as the founder of Singapore. Crawfurd made Singapore a British colony and without him, Singapore would not be able to be what it is today as at that time Singapore did not have any resources.
Personally, I feel that all three are equally important and the credit should go to all three of them. However, I feel that Farquhar was the one who did the most for Singapore. He was the true Singaporean as he knew the people, helped to construct Singapore and caused her to flourish. Therefore, I think the true founder of Singapore is William Farquhar. (:
It depends on the definition of 'founder'. From www.dictionary.com,'founder' means "One who establishes something or formulates the basis for something" From www.wikipedia.com, "Founder (noun) - With respect to a settlement, organization, company or enterprise, the person who started or "founded" (as if forging steel) it." If regards to the 1st definition, Farquhar should be the founder of Singapore as he was the one who saw Singapore through her infant years, establishing much more than Raffles and Crawfurd could. If regards to the 2nd definition, it should be Raffles & Crawfurd, as Raffles signed the treaty for Singapore to become a British colony whereas Crawfurd made Singapore a British possession.
With regards to this, I think that Farquhar should be the founder of Singapore, as he was the one who first saw Singapore, and not Raffles or Crawfurd.
I think Sir Stamford Raffles was the founder of modern Singapore.
He had the foresight to see Singapore as a land of great potential. Also, even though he stayed in Singapore for such a little time, he gave orders and assigned people, such as Farquhar, to carry them out. In his last stay in Singapore, he did a lot of things - such as providing the locals with a local magistrate to enforce law and order and replanning and reconstructuring the town (with the work being named as the Jackson Plan). He also drafted a constitution, and one of the regulations in it was that there shall be no crime for being a race.
The Jackson Plan illustrated that the Singapore River should be the city area, where all the trading took place. This idea is still being used nowadays.
The idea that there shall be no crime being a race is still being implemented today, and the forefathers of this nation also had recognized the importance in racial harmony. Racial harmony is constituted in the current Singapore Pledge as well.
There are also many other legacies that Raffles had left Singapore. Hence, Raffles' contribution to Singapore is very great, which is why I think he should be the founder of modern Singapore.
I believe that everyone who had contributed in making singapore a success are the founders of modern Singapore. The question is not who founded Singapore, it is how much each person contributed.
Raffles may or may not b the founder of Singapore. Lyk Angela said, it could b every1 hu got 2 Singapore. It could b farquhar, crawfor, raffles n some other people...
In my opinion, Raffles is the founder of Singapore. Although he wasn't physically present in singapore most of the time, he contributed alot to Singapore. He signed the treaty with the temenggong, laid out the floor plan, banned gambling and slavery etc.
If we use founder of Singapore as the meaning of making Singapore as what it is today, it's clear that PM(now MM) Lee Kuan Yew is the only rightful founder of Singapore. Singapore today is a independent,democratic republic with top 10 GDP per capatial and is amoung the country with the highest HDI and Standard of Living, and all this is acheived mainly by Lee Kuan Yew. If not for him, Singapore might still remain as a British colony or the 13th state of Malaysia. Raffels founded a British colony named Singapore, not Republic of Singapore as it is today.
Raffles is the founder of singapore because it was raffles who saw the potential in singapore that farquhar did not see that enabled the british to have a good port for trading as singapore is strategically positioned, has an excellent harbour and have plentiful supply of drinking water. The most important is that Singapore is not occupied by the Dutch. Thats why Singapore has the potential to challenge the Dutch monopoly. If it weren't for the farsightness of raffles to see the potential in Singpore, the hard work of Farquhar and the others will be useless.
Raffles is the founder of Singapore; he was the founder; the others, while they did contribute to Singapore, were only developers. Plus, Raffles was the one who obtained permission for the mission in the end, who decided to colonize Singapore as opposed to Farquhar's choice of the Kerimun Islands. He recommended the island, and made the plans.
While Farquhar and Crawfurd developed Singapore, they certainly did not found it.
I think Raffles is not the only founder of Singapore. Basically, "founded" comes from the word "foundation", which means establishing the basis of something. Raffles did, for signing the trading of Singapore. Sang Utama did, for the discovery of Tamesak. However, some of the credits should also be shared among Fahquhar and Crawford. Although Fahquhar did not make a good job to make the city a justified one, it is obvious that he set up the basis of Singapore. After Fahquhar was fired, Crawford came in and made great contribution to the development of Singapore.
They are not "developer" because Singapore is still developing its basis during the early nineteenth century.
I think Raffles is not the only founder of Singapore. Basically, "founded" comes from the word "foundation", which means establishing the basis of something. Raffles did, for signing the trading of Singapore. Sang Utama did, for the discovery of Tamesak. However, some of the credits should also be shared among Fahquhar and Crawford. Although Fahquhar did not make a good job to make the city a justified one, it is obvious that he set up the basis of Singapore. After Fahquhar was fired, Crawford came in and made great contribution to the development of Singapore.
They are not "developer" because Singapore is still developing its basis during the early nineteenth century.
I think Raffles is not the only founder of Singapore. Basically, "founded" comes from the word "foundation", which means establishing the basis of something. Raffles did, for signing the trading of Singapore. Sang Utama did, for the discovery of Tamesak. However, some of the credits should also be shared among Fahquhar and Crawford. Although Fahquhar did not make a good job to make the city a justified one, it is obvious that he set up the basis of Singapore. After Fahquhar was fired, Crawford came in and made great contribution to the development of Singapore.
They are not "developer" because Singapore is still developing its basis during the early nineteenth century.
i believe that raffles founded singapore,while the others, crawfurd, farquhar etc. played a big hand in the developement of the british port founeded by raffles. i think raffles should be given the title of beong the founder as he took two major steps: 1)he initiated and signeed the treaty. if this step was not taken, all the efforts of the others will all go down the drain. the british colony would not have even be established 2)he drew up the developement plan.
One of the definations of "founder" is a person who contributed or contributes a large portion of effort in the founding or development in a certain area.
If this defination is correct, then Raffles is definately the founder of Singapore.
However, this may not be fair to the other people who contributed to Singapore as they were 'essential' for Singapore to become what she is now, a successful city.
Therefore, I believe that Raffles and these other people are all founders of Singapore. However, Raffles is still a main contributer to Singapore and therefore he should be recognised as a main founder of Singapore.
I personally think that Raffles in the founder of Singapore although it WAS farquhar who developed her. True, without Farquhar, Singapore would not be what she is today as Farquhar was like a nanny to her when Raffles, was away. Just imagine, Singapore as a child, Raffles as the father and Farquhar/Crawfurd as the babysitters while the father was away. Now imagine, what if your dad has to go overboard overseas very very often and guiding you to a bright future whenever he has the time and your babysitter following his plan. If your father did not give your babysitters instructions, would they still listen? So, obviously, Raffles IS the founder of Singapore, from my point of view. Farquhar and Crawfurd are just developers and followers who hold no position to Raffles even though he visits Singapore very little, relative to the other two. Yes, all three of them must be given recognition and it would be totally bias-ness if we ignore the developers but Raffles deserve the highest recognition because of his "pro-ness" or organization plans which seperated the races together and "kind of" caused racial riots but thats out of point. Thus, Raffles is the founder of singapore.
I think Sir Stamford Raffles is the founder of Singapore. Even though Farquhar developed Singapore more than Raffles did, it was Raffles that signed the treaty and established Singapore.
He was the one who imposed law and order to Singapore, unlike Farquhar, who allowed slavery, drugs, gambling, etc.
Other pioneers, Farquhar, John Crawfurd, Lee Kuan Yew, etc. are just simply developers, while Raffles is the one who set visions and laid down the plans for Singapore.
Although the pioneers did more than Raffles did, without Raffles, they could not have done anything to help Singapore.
Thus, I think Raffles is the founder of Singapore.
personally,i think that Raffles,Farquhar,Crawfurd and others played their own important role in founding singapore.But still,Raffles signed the treaty that started the ball rolling and he was the one that fired farquhar and his wrongdoings. therefore, i can conclude that all played a role in founding singapore,but raffles played the biggest. -Abdurrahmaan
It all falls down onto how you define the word founder. However, more evidence points to Raffles being the founder rather than Farquhar or Crawford.
Still, I believe that the founding of (modern) Singapore was the combination of efforts by various people; Raffles, Farquhar, Crawford, LKY, LSL etc.
Think about it. The founding of Singapore is analogous to, say, the establishment of a scientific thoery. Let's look at the atomic model. The current quantum model was not developed my one Great Almighty nuclear physicist but by the combined effort of many.
The same goes with Singapore. True, Raffles signed the treaty with Sultan Hussein, and he drew up the town plan for Singapore. He promulgated a series of administrative regulations, he banned or heavily taxed vices such as gambling and drugs. Yes, Raffles did a lot for Singapore. He possibly fulfils every aspect of the definition of 'founder'.
But then again, people like Farquhar and Crawford, it was they who helped developed Singapore. Indeed, if Farquhar or Crawford were not there to oversee administrative matters in Singapore during Raffles absence, Singapore would not be what it is today(though argubly Farquhar let the situation in Singapore to degrade to a certain extent).
And even now, the PM and the government in general are continuously developing Singapore.
So perhaps it would be more accurate to say that Raffles is not The One, but that a group of people each played an important role in the establishment of modern Singapore.
I think raffles was the founder of Singapore as he established modern Singapore. Even though he wasn't in Singapore most of the time, it's not like he chose to go to banculen (i don't know how to spell) and he still established Singapore before he went and that's the meaning of founder. He left Farquah incharge of Singapore while he was away, well, Farquah messed up in the development of Singapore by allowing the trade of opium, cockfighting, slavery and gambling dens. Thus led to the "de-modernization" of Singapore. After Raffles came back from Banculen (i don't know how to spell), he was mad at Farquah so he fired him and gave Singapore to the hands of Crawford. Although unlike Farquah, Crawford was up to Raffles expectations, he didn't exactly found Singapore. In my opinion, he actually helped develop modern Singapore. though he made Singapore what it is today, it was Raffles who "sweet talked" sultan Hussein into "giving" him Singapore and thus, he could establish bases in Singapore. It was Farquah who was eying on Carrimon Islands, not Singapore. Thats why i think that Raffles founded Singapore, not Crawford ofr Farquah even though they helped in the development of Singapore, -Aristotle
Many people ave different opinions on who is the founder of Singapore as there are many definitions of the word 'founder'. It could mean the person who literally discovererd the place etc. But I personally feel that the founder of Singapore is Raffles. Raffles was the one who signed the treaty with the Sulton and the Temggong. He was the one who pusued a higher education for the people living on the island and laid the town plan which is practically still being used until today. Although one must not deny the fact that Farquhar did help contribute to the development of Singapore but he was merely carrying out Raffles orders. Moreover, he allowed slavery, cock-fighting, the sale of opium and the setting up of gambling dens in Singapore when Raffles was away. Raffles made Singapore a British coloney and he was the one who had to clear up Farquhars mess by closing down the gambling dens and banning opium,cock-fighting and slavery. Thus, I would say that Farquhar is only one of the developers of Singapore or one ofn the pioneers of Singapore. Therefore, Raffles is the founder of Singapore.
It is quite difficult to decide who is the founder of Singapore but I strongly believe that it is the combined effort of Sir Stamford Raffles, Major Farquhar, John Crawfurd and the pioneers of Singapore.
Though Raffles was the one who drew out all the plans and made the decisions, whthout William Farquhar, Singapore will not become what it is now and it will still remain as a 'sleepy' Malay Village that Raffles once saw.
However, the pioneers of Singapore also have a part in the development of Singapore. Without them, the plans could not be carried out even with Farquhar. They are the ones who had done the 'rough' work and was the one who worked their hearts out for Singapore.
Apart from Farquhar and the pioneers, John Crawfurd, too, has made significant contributions. He tightened and reformedthe judicial system in Singapore and signed the Anglo-Dutch treaty after Raffles left. This is also not to be neglected on Crawfurd's part.
Hence, I would say that it was the combined efforts of Stamford Raffles, William Farquhar, John crawfurd and the pioneers of Singapore that moulded Singapore from a inactive, Malay village of only a small population into a active, flourishing country with a amazing population of 4.5 million.
On another point, I will not say that anyone was the main founder of singapore depending on their contributions to singapore beacause it will seem unfair to neglect the contributions of the others. Others deserve credit as well.
I feel that the title of the Founder of Singapore should not be credited to one person alone, but instead should be credited to the combined efforts of Raffles, Farquhar, Crawfurd and the early pioneers of Singapore. In my opinion, a founder is a person who discovers, establishes and helps to develop a place.
Raffles discovered Singapore and signed the treaty that made Singapore a British colony. He also provided the ideas to hlep Singapore develop. He created a town plan, set up schools, and established law and order in Singapore.
While Raffles was the one who provided the ideas, Farquhar and Crawfurd were the ones who carried out these ideas. However, Farquhar allowed gambling, smoking of opium, slavery, etc. which had a considerable amount of negative effects on the development of Singapore. Crawfurd also licensed gambling.
The early pioneers of Singapore played important roles in helping to develop Singapore into a prosperous nation. Therefore, I feel that it is the contributions of Raffles, Farquhar, Crawfurd and the early pioneers that helped Singapore to grow and prosper.
I think that Raffles is indeed the founder of Singapore because he was the one who had foreseen the prosperities of future singapore and wanted it as a free port at that time.
He saw the potentials of singapore as a harbour, a free port and a trading post with natural resources at that time but not anyone else.
He was the one who signed the official treaty with Sultan Hussein. He wanted it as one of the British colonies. He had the innitiative to establish it as a British coloniy but not anyone else. Like someone once said, anyone can do something and not just that particular person but who is there to think of that action; but why can't anyone think of doing that other than that particular person? Who signed the treaty and had foreseen Singapore's potentials? Raffles is indeed the one! Besides, unlike Farqhuar, Raffles did not let Singapore fall into any kind of ruins at any point of time.
So, I seriously think that Raffles was the one who founded Singapore!!
I think Sir Stamford Raffles is the founder of colonial Singapore - he was the one who set up Singapore as a trading station.
However, some credits should be given to other pioneers of Singapore, such as Colonel William Farquhar, and Dr John Crawfurd, as had also contributed to the founding and growth of Singapore. Unfortunately, if you ask many people, they will know who Raffles is but may not know who Faquhar or Crawfurd is.
If you are referring to who founded modern or contemporary Singapore, I think most Singaporeans would answer, "Mr Lee Kuan Yew".
Just an addition to my comment posted earlier today during history lesson. I would say that the founder of Singapore is the person or people who established and contributed to the development of a settlement. Finally, I have clarified how I have decided who is the founder. A load off my mind.
87 comments:
Hi all, do share your view on who the founder of Singapore was.
Ms S Tan
er i think faquhar should be the founder of singapore as he did more of building up singapore than raffles during the first years
legolas
i think that raffles is the founder of singapore as he signed the treaty, besides there is a statue of raffles in singapore but none of faquhar's
-chen yue
I think Raffles is the founder of Singapore as he signed the treaty with the Sultan and Temenggong. He solved the trouble of signing the legal papers (treaty) with them and therefore theoretically founded Singapore.
However, Farqhuar did contribute more as a pioneer.
-Ansel
Faquhar is the founder of singapore as he put in the most effort to develope singapore. Raffles did not really do much and he did not care about much about the locals while Faquhar knew more about the people.
maybe raffles ??it all depends on the exact defination of founder
legolas
i think raffles is the real founder of singapore as he was the one who had seen singapore's potential at first and he signed the treaty and obviously there is a reason for raffles to be remembered but not farquhar.
-yexuan
faquhar is the founder of singapore as is contributed the most to singapore. unlike raffles, he knew more about locals, and he did things to please the locals.
yu fong
Raffles signed the treaty that founded Singapore. Without it, there would not have been a British Settlement there. Farquhar did indeed bring Singapore into being a well-known port, but he allowed vices like opium, slavery, prostitution etc. to continue. Raffles howevere, was teh one who established Singapore's first school and hospital for the good of the local population, as well as the penal code and Legislative Council of Singapore, giving it a legal and political system.
Jonathan
I think that Raffles and Farqhuar are both founders of Singapore. Raffles saw the potential of the island and signed the treaty with Tengku Hussein, who they recognised as the Sultan of Johor.
This Shows that Raffles had cunning and determination, determination to get Singapore as his island. Farqhuar was sent by Raffles to run the island in his place while he was in Bencoolen. Farqhuar solved the pest issue through wit and appealing to the settlers interests. He also allowed prostitution, gambling and slavery, which in the eyes of Raffles, was horrifying, as he knew that the immigrants needed these services so they would not be lonely. He set up a small police that, though small, it could keep some law and order. They both did well in the founding of Singapore, so I believe they should both be credited as founders.
Even though raffles indeed signed the famous treaties rendering singapore under british control, a pen does not a founder make. Farquhar's network of contacts gave Singapore its initial clients, without which we surely could not have made it through those dark times. Also, his wise policies, including the setting up of a police force and a widespread pest control program likely stabilised the colony, which would have made it seem more attractive to settlers in those times.
Sean
Farquhar rawks!
PS. Farquhar was the one who SPOTTED singapore in the first place.
I think that there is a lot of eveidence that a lot of 'someones' could be the founder od singapore if argued properly. Personally i think that there will be more than founder,as opposed to the one mighty founder...it could very well have been,well,the settlers in the early years that had established Singapore. in the first place.
Firstly,the definition of founder is that it is someone who establishes or recognise a country of its potential,than develope it. Therefore,if considered carefully,Raffles IS not the founder,if not directly.
As for Farquar,welll,he did build the base for the world to konw us Singapore,but still,it is still the early settlers...as mentioned above.
My conclusion:There is no real founder.
---------'''--------'''---------'''3.14159265357932384626433832795028841971693993751058209749445923078164062862089986280348253421170679
I feel that the answer to this question depends on the definition of "founder". dictionary.com defines the trem "founder" as a person who founds or establishes. Following this definition, the founder of Singapore should be Sir Stamford Raffles as he was the one who established the foundation of Singapore.
However, in my opinion, I think that there is no single founder of Singapore. Three people should be considered as the founders of Singapore- Raffles, Faquhar and Crawfurd. I would like to quote from http://www.scholars.nus.edu.sg/post/singapore/history/chew/founders.html . Singapore was fortunate in her three early pioneer administrators: Raffles, a man of extraordinary vision, but for whom Singapore would never have existed; Farquhar, who by his energy, good sense and courage, nursed the infant settlement through its first dangerous years; and Crawfurd, shrewd and sensible, with his feet planted firmly on the ground, who converted into reality Raffles' most practical dreams. [...] Despite this long association, Crawfurd's name, like Farquhar's, has faded almost into obscurity, and of Singapore's pioneers only Raffles' fame and reputation have grown over the years...."
-Anlong
It is quite obvious that Raffles founded it. But finding it does not mean he is the founder. A founder is a person who finds as well as establishes a country. Raffles only founded it. Farquhar was the one who established it. He got rid of pests, worked together with the malay chief in establishing it even further. He also helped to negotiate the treaty. All Raffles did was come back to Singapore for only one or two times to see how Farquhar was doing. In the end, he even fired Farquhar thinking that the way Farquhar was organizing "Singapura" wrongly. In fact all the projects that he had done in South-East Asia had failed except for Singapore. This is because Farquhar was the one establishing it. If not for Farquhar, there would not be the Singapore present today. But on the other hand, if Raffles had not come to Singapore and chosen it as the "perfect" seaport, Farquhar would not have been here. This means that both Sir Thomas Stamford Raffles and William Farquhar played a part in the founding of Singapore. From my point of view, I think they both are the founders of Singapore.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
HARDIK KISHOR
M08101
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
It is quite difficult to give an objective view on this situation as it really falls back on how one defines 'founder'. However, I strongly believe Raffles founded Singapore.
Firstly, let us take a look at the definition of 'found' from Dictionary.com:
1.to set up or establish on a firm basis or for enduring existence: to found a new publishing company.
2. to lay the lowest part of (a structure) on a firm base or ground: a house founded on solid rock.
3. to base or ground (usually fol. by on or upon): a story founded on fact.
4. to provide a basis or ground for.
Raffles had made the British sign the treaty with the Sultan and Temmengong, thus allowing them to set up a settlement on Singapore. This set the foundation of Singapore's development, and modern Singapore would not have been possible without that treaty.
Farquhar, however, only developed the island. He did not create the foundation that allowed the British to set up a settlement in there, so he cannot be defined as a 'founder'. However, credit should go to him for pulling in immigrants to Singapore, without which we would not be here today.
- Byorn
Fast fact. Raffles' middle name was BINGLEY. LOL!
Sean.
In my own opinion, Faqhuar is the real founder of Singapore. He did all the work and all the troubles and go through thick and thin with Singapore. Although it is Raffles who discovered Singapore, he had a selfish interest. He wanted to use it as habour which catered to British. He was not with Singapore when Singapore was in trouble. He was serving Bristish at that time. To him, British was his hometown and where he belonged. Singapore was a place for him to make money. Whereas, Faqhuar was the one who went through thick and thin with Singapore and he understood what Singaporean was going through at that time. :)
Personally I feel that Raffles should be the founder of Singapore. Raffles was the person to choose Singapore as a trading port and signed the treaty with the Temenggong and the Sultan to gain permission to set up a trading port in Singapore. However, Raffles left for Bencoolen after that, leaving Farquhar behind to build up the new trading port. Farquhar had faced many problems and had even sent several letters to Raffles, asking for help but some of them were not returned by Raffles. Thus, Farquhar had to solve the problems on his own and built up Singapore from scratch, thus his merit was no lesser than Raffles. Later, Raffles returned to Singapore and brought Singapore another step further. If not for Raffles, his ambitions and far-sightedness, Singapore would not have been as it is today, but if not for Farquhar who had solved the problems Singapore had faced in its early critical stage, Raffles would not have been able to bring Singapore this far.
Gabriel
In my opinion, I think that Stanford Raffles is the founder of Singapore as he was the one to take the initiative to travel here and find a place that is very good for trading and not under Dutch control to trade, thus he came to Singapore, which has excellent harbour, location and supply of drinkable water.
He was the one to sign the first treaty which opened Singapore to trade with British. If Raffles did not come here, there would not be Singapore at all. He also went to plan out for the development of Singapore and left Farquhar in-charge. Although he left Farquhar in charge, he supervised Farquhar and visited Singapore thrice (the last visit lasted 8 months). Even though Farquhar was the one to set up Singapore, there wouldn’t be any Singapore if Raffles did not sign the treaty which led to other treaties which made Singapore be a colony with Britain. Thus Farquhar could be the co-founder to Singapore.
Lowell tan
I think that Faquhar should be the founder of Singapore. While Faquhar was building up Singapore in the first few years, Raffles was away most of the time and only came back for several times. He contributed only a little to the development of Singapore
-Wei Qi
Sir Thomas Stamford Bingley Raffles!
I think Raffles founded Singapore as he was the one who negotiate with the Sultan and Temenggong to allow the British to set up a settlement in Singapore. If it wasn't for Raffles, Singapore wouldn't have existed. He also had plans for Singapore that help to make it what it is today.
Aisyah
In my opinion, I think William Farquhar is the founder of Singapore. This is because he was the one who established Singapore and developed it during its infant years. Some examples are:
1)He set up a police force to lower the crime rates in the country.
2)He also paid people for each rat klilled. This helped to get rid of the pests, so that the country will be cleaner and not as vulnerable to diseases.
Raffles signed the treaty, so that Singapore would be recognized as a full colony under the British. However,he only visited Singapore thrice and left Singapore to be run by Farquhar after that.
Farquhar stayed in Singapore longer than Raffles, and thus understand the people living here better. If it was Raffles who run the place, he might not have done a better job than Farquhar.
Furthermore, it stated on Farquhar's tomb stone that he was the founder of Singapore.
-Glenn
In my opinion, Raffles, Farquhar, Crawfurd and the pioneers all contributed in some way or another to the founding of Singapore. The pioneers inhabited Singapore and without them, not many other people or traders would be attracted to a small trading post as they would rather go to a more established one to barter with their goods.
As for Crawfurd, he continued building the foundations for early Singapore. He was more decisive than Farquhar and perhaps those decisions he made were beneficial
to Singapore. As the second Resident of Singapore, he expanded on the intitial foundations of the island and also signed the Anglo-Dutch treaty to officially make Singapore a British possession
Farquhar had the unenviable task of building up Singapore from scratch. Firstly, he cleared land and set up huts. He also attracted merchants and traders from Melacca, ensuring that there was also enough food to sustain the inhabitants of the island. Farquhar set up a small police force to deal with violence. To deal with pests, he offered money for every rat or centipede killed. However, Farquhar disobeyed some parts of Raffles' orders and he also allowed vices like opium, gambling, prostitution and slavery. When Raffles left the island, Farquhar was left on his own to think of solutions to solve the many problems that arose from the initial building of this trading settlement.Although Farquhar played a major part in buliding up early Singapore, he was dismissed by Raffles for going lightly on vices and disobeying his orders.
In my opinion, I strongly feel that Raffles played the most instrumental part in the establishment of Singapore. He signed the treaty with the elder son of the Sultan of Johore to allow the British to set up a trading settlement in Singapore. This was the first step in building the settlement. Although he only visited Singapore thrice after signing the treaty and leaving, he gave orders to Farquhar to build Singapore according to his instructions and Raffles also drew up the initial town plan to allocate living space and land to the different races. Without Raffles' signing of the treaty, Crawfurd and Farquhar would not have played a part in the setting up of Singapore. Raffles also set up the initial legislature and law in Singapore.
I conclude that all 4 of the above parties played a part in the setting up of Singapore as a trading settlement. Without any of them, Singapore would not be what it is today.
112358132134558914423337761098715972584418167651094617711286574363875025121393169348
***********************************
Wei Hao
***********************************
I think that Raffles, Farquhar and the pioneers all played a part. Raffles saw the potential of Singapore and signed the treaty that to build up a British settlement in Singapore. He also banned prostitution and gambling. The laws set up by him are quite similar to what it is today too. Farquhar was employed by Raffles to run Singapore and he solved many problems early Singapore faced. In fact, the first batch of immigrants in Singapore are invited by Farquhar from Malacca and Farquhar made the effort to let traders passing by know the existence of Singapore. Raffles' far sightedness, ambition; Farquhar's understanding of Southeast Asia,practical ways of running Singapore and the hard work of the pioneers, brought Singapore through its hardest development stages. Thus, I think that credit should be shared among them.
-winnie
101
In my opinion, I feel that those who had helped to establish Singapore in one way or another are considered as the founder of Singapore as there are many meanings for the term 'FOUNDER'
For instance, Raffles discovered Singapore and saw her potential. He also signed the treaty with the Temenggong. Hence, without Raffles, Singapore is probably still a 'sleepy fishing village'.
As for Faquhar, he was the one who helped rule Singapore when Raffles was away. Also, he attracted traders from other parts of the world to Singapore. Without Faquhar, Singapore would not have been a successful trading settlement.
Thus, I feel that whoever the founder of Singapore is, is not really important as what really matters is who helped established the settlement, in any sorts of ways.
-simin
112358132134558914423337761098715972584418467651094617711286574363875025121393196348
Fibonacci Sequence Rocks
Pie Doesn't
Wei Hao
Another point to add:
Farqhuar only developed Singapore but didn't found her.
In my opinion, both Raffles and Farquhar are considered founders of Singapore. Singapore would not have been what it is today if either of them had not been there to help establish it.
Raffles did the crucial job of signing the treaty with the Sultan and Temenggong. He was ambitious and saw Singapore's potentials.
As for Farquhar, he played the role of supporting and helping Singapore through the toughest and darkest times during the first few years. He put in great efforts to develop Singapore. Without him, Singapore might not have integrated from a "sleeping fishing village" to a thriving trading settlement.
Also, it actually depends on the real definition of "founder", as people have various opinions as to what actually defines it.
So yea, I'm more towards the neutral side(:
-Felecia
Faquhar rocks! Faraday also.
lol
wei hao post something about history lah
legolas
In my opinion, Raffles founded Singapore. He was far-sighted and he had a vision of what Singapore would become. He chose Singapore. Without Raffles, Singapore would not have existed.
Raffles also contributed to the development of Singapore by building schools & hospitals, and developing major centres in Singapore, into business hubs. He also planned out the structure of Singapore, such as the town plan, the legislature and the focus of Singapore's economy- trading. Without this, Singapore would have been greatly disorganised and there would be a lack of rule and order.
On the otherhand, although Farquhar did solve a lot of Singapore's starting problems, interacted with the people and attracted immigrants to Singapore, he did not plan out Singapore's structure and the layout of Singapore. He most probably only carried out his duties under orders. However, it is undeniable that he contributed a lot to Singapore's overall development.
-samantha
The layout of Singapore wasnt a good idea in my opinion. It only separated the different races and problems about racism arised later on.
-winnie
Raffles is the founder of singapore. the ship he came here with belonged to him and farquhar did not eye singapore even though he knew about it.
The comment about raffles ship is mine
Kendrick
I think stamford raffles was the one who founded singapore as he was the first person to have the idea of colonizing singapore. He also was the one who signed the treaty to let the british use the port and was the one who agreed on the money to be given to singapore for the use of the port.
-Jonathan Ang
-M08103
-23/7/2008
I believe that the founders should be the first Singapore residents themselves, as without them, we wouldn't be here today.
-I am not Lameomaster
Kenryk
I think Raffles is the founder, not Faquhar. If you ask many people, they will know who Raffles is but may not know who Faquhar is.
-This is NOT kenryk
i think it should be farquhar as he was the one who nurtured Singapore when it was 'young' and he solved all the problems Singapore was facing that time.
-Miao Jing:]]
I Think Raffles Is The Founder Of Modern Singapore As He Was The One Who Signed The Treaty And Made Singapore A Trading Port In The First Place.
uh i think that raffles and farquhar were both founders of singapore as they both did their part and singapore would not be what it is today without either of them.
-cheryl m08103
I think that Raffles was the founder of Singapore, being the person who signed the treaty,although both Raffles and Crawfurd(or Crawford...w/e) and Farquhar had contributed to the growth of Singapore
Without Raffles, Singapore would probably not have been noticed in the first place.
Without Farquhar, Singapore would not have made it through its early years, when Raffles left Singapore.
Without Crawfurd, Singapore would not have prospered.
Adrian, 103
I think Raffles should be the founder of Singapore as he chose Singapore as a trading port and signed the treaty in 1819. Moreover, he did all the plans and Farquar only followed what Raffles said and established Singapore. After that when Raffles came back from Bencoolen, he brought a step further in establishing Singapore. Thus, Farquar should not be the founder of Singapore and Raffles is.
-----------------------------------
Yeo Yao Rui (22)
M08103
-----------------------------------
I think raffles should be the founder of singapore as he was the one who saw potential in singapore.
Aik Wee
I Think Raffles Is The founder Of Modern Singapore As He Was The One Who Signed The Treaty And Made SIbngapore A trading POrt In the First Place
After the debate, I think that Raffles founded Singapore with the help of William Faquhar as the one conducting the work. So I think that both of them did the most.
I personally feel that raffles was the one who founded singapore because basically, he signed the treaty with the Sultan of Johor and the Temeggong. He also provided Faquhar the long-term plans he had for singapore. If he couldn't stay on the island throughtout, it is not a surprise as he had a position and had other plans. Naturally, he wouldn't have stayed on the island. That's why he put Faquhar in charge of Singapore while he was away. Faquhar on the other hand, he was a resident on the island, and had no other duties to fufil outside of the island. Raffles was also the one who started free trade in Singapore. Although Faquhar was already a resident in Singapore before Raffles came, he failed to see the potential in Singapore as a trading settlement.
Therefore, Raffles was the founder of Singapore.
-Rania
Personally, i think that Raffles is the founder of Singapore as he was the one who gave the foresight of developing this island. Although Farquhar did contribute a lot in the development of singapore, he was merely carrying out Raffles' orders and should be termed as one of the pioneers, but not the founder. Raffle's was the one who started free trade in Singapore, which was one of the main contrbuting factors to singapore's Prosperity in its early days.
Although Farquhar did contribute a lot to Singapore by pulling in traders.
Therefore, i think raffles should be the founder of Singapore.
-deborah- ;D
I think that Major William Faquhar, was the founder of Singapore as Sir Stamford Raffles barely did not, "chu li" at all while Faquhar did most of the tough part durign the early years.
Gabriel Manuel Sidik
M08103
I feel that Farquhar is the founder of Singapore. Although it was Raffles who signed the treaty, it was farquhar who negotiated it. After the signing of the treaty, raffles left for bencoolen, leaving burdens to farquhar. raffles only gave farquhar plans of what he needed to do. It was farquhar who actually carried out and materialise raffles' dreams. farquhar invited people from malacca to come over to trade and got the settlement started. farquhar met with several problems and tried to turn to raffles for help but raffles was barely contactable. hence, farquhar handed the problems all by himself. due to his good contacts in malacca, farquhar got necessaties to be sailed down to singapore from malacca.
Hence, i feel that farquhar had played a very good part in building the settlement and he should be the founder of singapore.
Jia Hong:)
M08103
HII!! I think the founder as Singapore is founded by Raffles as he signed the treaty and he did give instructions to Farquhar.
But because Raffles did not give Farquhar enough money,he could only resort to allowing gambling dens.
Faquhar only stayed there to carry out the instructions.But Farquhar did most of the stuff in Singapore's begining.So he was more like a caring mother to it.(LOL)
- Sia Yi Zhi,m081013
Raffles was the one who spotted Singapore and he was the one who thought of brilliant solutions to get permission to sign the treaty. Technically, he was the true owner of Singapore and he was the actual founder. Raffles made several plans and ideas to change Singapore and further develop her. You could say that Raffles was the “mastermind” behind everything. Raffles provided neccessaties to help in the construction like money, food and materials. Withoiut him, Singapore would not have become a flourishing city like today. He helped get Singapore this far through his many thoughts of building trading ports, schools and many other places. However, he did not do this alone. Raffles’ did not really carry out these plans himself. Farquhar played an important role in the building up of Singapore. Farquhar was left alone to do the manual part in building up Singapore and he overran all the administrative work. Raffles', however, did nothing as he left Singapore after signing the treaty. Farquhar single handedly had to make Singapore more well known to traders and other villagers. He also needed many labourers to run the city. Using his knowledge and communication skills, he managed to get many settlers and traders to come to Singapore. This played a very important role in the history of Singapore. Farquhar, without the help of Raffles, solved several problems in Singapore. For example, he solved food shortage problems by spreading the news to Malacca, whose traders brought products down. Also, by setting up a small police force, Farquhar solved crime and disorder partially. By offering a cash reward for every pest killed, he managed to eliminate the infestation of rats and centipedes. As for Crawfurd, in 1824, he signed a treaty which made Singapore a British colony. He also set up a court for local cases.
As for the question who is the real founder of Singapore, I feel that the word "founder" can be interpreted by two different meanings, "the person who established the settlement" or "someone who helps in the growth of the country politically, economically and socially". Raffles was the one who established Singapore and so according to the former, he founded Singapore. However, Farquhar was the one who developed Singapore into what we currently are and so according to the latter, he should be regarded as the founder of Singapore. Crawfurd made Singapore a British colony and without him, Singapore would not be able to be what it is today as at that time Singapore did not have any resources.
Personally, I feel that all three are equally important and the credit should go to all three of them. However, I feel that Farquhar was the one who did the most for Singapore. He was the true Singaporean as he knew the people, helped to construct Singapore and caused her to flourish. Therefore, I think the true founder of Singapore is William Farquhar. (:
-Shi Ni
m08103
I think that Raffles was the founder of Singapore. Because Raffles negotiated with Tommenggong to build a british settlement on Singapore.
Clarence Cheong
It depends on the definition of 'founder'. From www.dictionary.com,'founder' means "One who establishes something or formulates the basis for something" From www.wikipedia.com, "Founder (noun) - With respect to a settlement, organization, company or enterprise, the person who started or "founded" (as if forging steel) it."
If regards to the 1st definition, Farquhar should be the founder of Singapore as he was the one who saw Singapore through her infant years, establishing much more than Raffles and Crawfurd could.
If regards to the 2nd definition, it should be Raffles & Crawfurd, as Raffles signed the treaty for Singapore to become a British colony whereas Crawfurd made Singapore a British possession.
With regards to this, I think that Farquhar should be the founder of Singapore, as he was the one who first saw Singapore, and not Raffles or Crawfurd.
-Ivy (103)
I think Sir Stamford Raffles was the founder of modern Singapore.
He had the foresight to see Singapore as a land of great potential. Also, even though he stayed in Singapore for such a little time, he gave orders and assigned people, such as Farquhar, to carry them out. In his last stay in Singapore, he did a lot of things - such as providing the locals with a local magistrate to enforce law and order and replanning and reconstructuring the town (with the work being named as the Jackson Plan). He also drafted a constitution, and one of the regulations in it was that there shall be no crime for being a race.
The Jackson Plan illustrated that the Singapore River should be the city area, where all the trading took place. This idea is still being used nowadays.
The idea that there shall be no crime being a race is still being implemented today, and the forefathers of this nation also had recognized the importance in racial harmony. Racial harmony is constituted in the current Singapore Pledge as well.
There are also many other legacies that Raffles had left Singapore. Hence, Raffles' contribution to Singapore is very great, which is why I think he should be the founder of modern Singapore.
-Zhen Jie (103)
I believe that everyone who had contributed in making singapore a success are the founders of modern Singapore. The question is not who founded Singapore, it is how much each person contributed.
- Cyrus Wang of 103
i think its raffles. he laid down the plans. he signed the treaty and the british recognise him as the founder not farquar
Nicholas Lee
Raffles may or may not b the founder of Singapore.
Lyk Angela said, it could b every1 hu got 2 Singapore.
It could b farquhar, crawfor, raffles n some other people...
I think raffles is the founder as he signed the treaty, and saw the potential in Singapore.
I think that Raffles is the author of Singapore as he signed the treaty and got the authorisation from the Sultan of Malacca.
Joshua Chew
102
In my opinion, Raffles is the founder of Singapore. Although he wasn't physically present in singapore most of the time, he contributed alot to Singapore. He signed the treaty with the temenggong, laid out the floor plan, banned gambling and slavery etc.
-Weishuen
Animatrix is Marcus Ooi of M08102, sorry for not writing name, i forgot about it.
If we use founder of Singapore as the meaning of making Singapore as what it is today, it's clear that PM(now MM) Lee Kuan Yew is the only rightful founder of Singapore. Singapore today is a independent,democratic republic with top 10 GDP per capatial and is amoung the country with the highest HDI and Standard of Living, and all this is acheived mainly by Lee Kuan Yew. If not for him, Singapore might still remain as a British colony or the 13th state of Malaysia. Raffels founded a British colony named Singapore, not Republic of Singapore as it is today.
-Wang Bo
I feel that Raffles should be the founder of Singapore. He was the one who signed the treaty and made up the layout of SGP's roads and design etc.
I feel that Raffles should be the founder of Singapore. He was the one who signed the treaty and made up the layout of SGP's roads and design etc.
Raffles is the founder of singapore because it was raffles who saw the potential in singapore that farquhar did not see that enabled the british to have a good port for trading as singapore is strategically positioned, has an excellent harbour and have plentiful supply of drinking water. The most important is that Singapore is not occupied by the Dutch. Thats why Singapore has the potential to challenge the Dutch monopoly. If it weren't for the farsightness of raffles to see the potential in Singpore, the hard work of Farquhar and the others will be useless.
- Mak Zheyu
Raffles is the founder of Singapore; he was the founder; the others, while they did contribute to Singapore, were only developers. Plus, Raffles was the one who obtained permission for the mission in the end, who decided to colonize Singapore as opposed to Farquhar's choice of the Kerimun Islands. He recommended the island, and made the plans.
While Farquhar and Crawfurd developed Singapore, they certainly did not found it.
~Brendan
M08102
I think Raffles is not the only founder of Singapore. Basically, "founded" comes from the word "foundation", which means establishing the basis of something. Raffles did, for signing the trading of Singapore. Sang Utama did, for the discovery of Tamesak. However, some of the credits should also be shared among Fahquhar and Crawford. Although Fahquhar did not make a good job to make the city a justified one, it is obvious that he set up the basis of Singapore.
After Fahquhar was fired, Crawford came in and made great contribution to the development of Singapore.
They are not "developer" because Singapore is still developing its basis during the early nineteenth century.
Junfu
M08102
I think Raffles is not the only founder of Singapore. Basically, "founded" comes from the word "foundation", which means establishing the basis of something. Raffles did, for signing the trading of Singapore. Sang Utama did, for the discovery of Tamesak. However, some of the credits should also be shared among Fahquhar and Crawford. Although Fahquhar did not make a good job to make the city a justified one, it is obvious that he set up the basis of Singapore.
After Fahquhar was fired, Crawford came in and made great contribution to the development of Singapore.
They are not "developer" because Singapore is still developing its basis during the early nineteenth century.
Junfu
M09202
I think Raffles is not the only founder of Singapore. Basically, "founded" comes from the word "foundation", which means establishing the basis of something. Raffles did, for signing the trading of Singapore. Sang Utama did, for the discovery of Tamesak. However, some of the credits should also be shared among Fahquhar and Crawford. Although Fahquhar did not make a good job to make the city a justified one, it is obvious that he set up the basis of Singapore.
After Fahquhar was fired, Crawford came in and made great contribution to the development of Singapore.
They are not "developer" because Singapore is still developing its basis during the early nineteenth century.
Junfu
M09202
i believe that raffles founded singapore,while the others, crawfurd, farquhar etc. played a big hand in the developement of the british port founeded by raffles. i think raffles should be given the title of beong the founder as he took two major steps:
1)he initiated and signeed the treaty. if this step was not taken, all the efforts of the others will all go down the drain. the british colony would not have even be established
2)he drew up the developement plan.
parinita
paiseh previous unnamed comment is by me...
kuoxuan
One of the definations of "founder" is a person who contributed or contributes a large portion of effort in the founding or development in a certain area.
If this defination is correct, then Raffles is definately the founder of Singapore.
However, this may not be fair to the other people who contributed to Singapore as they were 'essential' for Singapore to become what she is now, a successful city.
Therefore, I believe that Raffles and these other people are all founders of Singapore. However, Raffles is still a main contributer to Singapore and therefore he should be recognised as a main founder of Singapore.
-andrew quah-
m08102
paiseh previous unnamed comment is by me...
kuoxuan
I personally think that Raffles in the founder of Singapore although it WAS farquhar who developed her.
True, without Farquhar, Singapore would not be what she is today as Farquhar was like a nanny to her when Raffles, was away.
Just imagine, Singapore as a child, Raffles as the father and Farquhar/Crawfurd as the babysitters while the father was away.
Now imagine, what if your dad has to go overboard overseas very very often and guiding you to a bright future whenever he has the time and your babysitter following his plan.
If your father did not give your babysitters instructions, would they still listen?
So, obviously, Raffles IS the founder of Singapore, from my point of view.
Farquhar and Crawfurd are just developers and followers who hold no position to Raffles even though he visits Singapore very little, relative to the other two.
Yes, all three of them must be given recognition and it would be totally bias-ness if we ignore the developers but Raffles deserve the highest recognition because of his
"pro-ness" or organization plans which seperated the races together and "kind of" caused racial riots but thats out of point.
Thus, Raffles is the founder of singapore.
Jean.
I think Sir Stamford Raffles is the founder of Singapore. Even though Farquhar developed Singapore more than Raffles did, it was Raffles that signed the treaty and established Singapore.
He was the one who imposed law and order to Singapore, unlike Farquhar, who allowed slavery, drugs, gambling, etc.
Other pioneers, Farquhar, John Crawfurd, Lee Kuan Yew, etc. are just simply developers, while Raffles is the one who set visions and laid down the plans for Singapore.
Although the pioneers did more than Raffles did, without Raffles, they could not have done anything to help Singapore.
Thus, I think Raffles is the founder of Singapore.
--Andreea, m08102 (:
personally,i think that Raffles,Farquhar,Crawfurd and others played their own important role in founding singapore.But still,Raffles signed the treaty that started the ball rolling and he was the one that fired farquhar and his wrongdoings.
therefore, i can conclude that all played a role in founding singapore,but raffles played the biggest.
-Abdurrahmaan
It all falls down onto how you define the word founder. However, more evidence points to Raffles being the founder rather than Farquhar or Crawford.
Still, I believe that the founding of (modern) Singapore was the combination of efforts by various people; Raffles, Farquhar, Crawford, LKY, LSL etc.
Think about it. The founding of Singapore is analogous to, say, the establishment of a scientific thoery. Let's look at the atomic model. The current quantum model was not developed my one Great Almighty nuclear physicist but by the combined effort of many.
The same goes with Singapore. True, Raffles signed the treaty with Sultan Hussein, and he drew up the town plan for Singapore. He promulgated a series of administrative regulations, he banned or heavily taxed vices such as gambling and drugs. Yes, Raffles did a lot for Singapore. He possibly fulfils every aspect of the definition of 'founder'.
But then again, people like Farquhar and Crawford, it was they who helped developed Singapore. Indeed, if Farquhar or Crawford were not there to oversee administrative matters in Singapore during Raffles absence, Singapore would not be what it is today(though argubly Farquhar let the situation in Singapore to degrade to a certain extent).
And even now, the PM and the government in general are continuously developing Singapore.
So perhaps it would be more accurate to say that Raffles is not The One, but that a group of people each played an important role in the establishment of modern Singapore.
-Jun Qi
I think raffles was the founder of Singapore as he established modern Singapore. Even though he wasn't in Singapore most of the time, it's not like he chose to go to banculen (i don't know how to spell) and he still established Singapore before he went and that's the meaning of founder. He left Farquah incharge of Singapore while he was away, well, Farquah messed up in the development of Singapore by allowing the trade of opium, cockfighting, slavery and gambling dens. Thus led to the "de-modernization" of Singapore. After Raffles came back from Banculen (i don't know how to spell), he was mad at Farquah so he fired him and gave Singapore to the hands of Crawford. Although unlike Farquah, Crawford was up to Raffles expectations, he didn't exactly found Singapore. In my opinion, he actually helped develop modern Singapore. though he made Singapore what it is today, it was Raffles who "sweet talked" sultan Hussein into "giving" him Singapore and thus, he could establish bases in Singapore. It was Farquah who was eying on Carrimon Islands, not Singapore. Thats why i think that Raffles founded Singapore, not Crawford ofr Farquah even though they helped in the development of Singapore,
-Aristotle
Many people ave different opinions on who is the founder of Singapore as there are many definitions of the word 'founder'. It could mean the person who literally discovererd the place etc. But I personally feel that the founder of Singapore is Raffles. Raffles was the one who signed the treaty with the Sulton and the Temggong. He was the one who pusued a higher education for the people living on the island and laid the town plan which is practically still being used until today. Although one must not deny the fact that Farquhar did help contribute to the development of Singapore but he was merely carrying out Raffles orders. Moreover, he allowed slavery, cock-fighting, the sale of opium and the setting up of gambling dens in Singapore when Raffles was away. Raffles made Singapore a British coloney and he was the one who had to clear up Farquhars mess by closing down the gambling dens and banning opium,cock-fighting and slavery. Thus, I would say that Farquhar is only one of the developers of Singapore or one ofn the pioneers of Singapore. Therefore, Raffles is the founder of Singapore.
Audrey
Hi all,
It is quite difficult to decide who is the founder of Singapore but I strongly believe that it is the combined effort of Sir Stamford Raffles, Major Farquhar, John Crawfurd and the pioneers of Singapore.
Though Raffles was the one who drew out all the plans and made the decisions, whthout William Farquhar, Singapore will not become what it is now and it will still remain as a 'sleepy' Malay Village that Raffles once saw.
However, the pioneers of Singapore also have a part in the development of Singapore. Without them, the plans could not be carried out even with Farquhar. They are the ones who had done the 'rough' work and was the one who worked their hearts out for Singapore.
Apart from Farquhar and the pioneers, John Crawfurd, too, has made significant contributions. He tightened and reformedthe judicial system in Singapore and signed the Anglo-Dutch treaty after Raffles left. This is also not to be neglected on Crawfurd's part.
Hence, I would say that it was the combined efforts of Stamford Raffles, William Farquhar, John crawfurd and the pioneers of Singapore that moulded Singapore from a inactive, Malay village of only a small population into a active, flourishing country with a amazing population of 4.5 million.
On another point, I will not say that anyone was the main founder of singapore depending on their contributions to singapore beacause it will seem unfair to neglect the contributions of the others. Others deserve credit as well.
Justin Ng
M08102
I feel that the title of the Founder of Singapore should not be credited to one person alone, but instead should be credited to the combined efforts of Raffles, Farquhar, Crawfurd and the early pioneers of Singapore. In my opinion, a founder is a person who discovers, establishes and helps to develop a place.
Raffles discovered Singapore and signed the treaty that made Singapore a British colony. He also provided the ideas to hlep Singapore develop. He created a town plan, set up schools, and established law and order in Singapore.
While Raffles was the one who provided the ideas, Farquhar and Crawfurd were the ones who carried out these ideas. However, Farquhar allowed gambling, smoking of opium, slavery, etc. which had a considerable amount of negative effects on the development of Singapore. Crawfurd also licensed gambling.
The early pioneers of Singapore played important roles in helping to develop Singapore into a prosperous nation. Therefore, I feel that it is the contributions of Raffles, Farquhar, Crawfurd and the early pioneers that helped Singapore to grow and prosper.
~Angela~
I think that Raffles is indeed the founder of Singapore because he was the one who had foreseen the prosperities of future singapore and wanted it as a free port at that time.
He saw the potentials of singapore as a harbour, a free port and a trading post with natural resources at that time but not anyone else.
He was the one who signed the official treaty with Sultan Hussein. He wanted it as one of the British colonies. He had the innitiative to establish it as a British coloniy but not anyone else. Like someone once said, anyone can do something and not just that particular person but who is there to think of that action; but why can't anyone think of doing that other than that particular person? Who signed the treaty and had foreseen Singapore's potentials? Raffles is indeed the one! Besides, unlike Farqhuar, Raffles did not let Singapore fall into any kind of ruins at any point of time.
So, I seriously think that Raffles was the one who founded Singapore!!
Chen Ge
M08102
I think Sir Stamford Raffles is the founder of colonial Singapore - he was the one who set up Singapore as a trading station.
However, some credits should be given to other pioneers of Singapore, such as Colonel William Farquhar, and Dr John Crawfurd, as had also contributed to the founding and growth of Singapore. Unfortunately, if you ask many people, they will know who Raffles is but may not know who Faquhar or Crawfurd is.
If you are referring to who founded modern or contemporary Singapore, I think most Singaporeans would answer, "Mr Lee Kuan Yew".
Lim Jeck
M08103
Hi all,
Just an addition to my comment posted earlier today during history lesson. I would say that the founder of Singapore is the person or people who established and contributed to the development of a settlement. Finally, I have clarified how I have decided who is the founder. A load off my mind.
Justin Ng
M08102
Post a Comment