CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
Farquhar won the affection and respect from the people with his doings. When he was sacked, thousands of people bade him farewell on the day he left Singapore. This proves that Farquhar is very important to the people.
Does winning the affection of people make Farquhar the founder of Singapore?A founder is someone who establishes something.Farquhar did not establish the free trade in Singapore.Raffles did.
And does winning the affection of someone make them the founder?He might be important as you said but he just solved some everyday problems in Singapore
Many of the citizens support Farquhar because he was the one who appeared the most to them, and they were the one who could see the effects of his contributions first-hand. But they did not see the contributions of Raffles in the bigger picture. The contributions of Raffles were bigger than Farquhar. He had ideas, he had the support of the British when he selected Singapore. But his contributions were hidden to the common people
Please explain what you mean by common people. Do you mean that only nobles can see Raffle's contribution? AND if Farquhar was the one that appeared most to them, why do we now forget him? Even the street bearing his name has been removed.
Please explain further about the affection and respect. Does that mean that I win the affection and respect of the people, I am the founder of something? Sometimes people win people's affection and respect by doing some other good deeds and they may not have founded anything.
Even though Raffles did all the so-called planning, Farquhar did make some plans of his own, too, since Raffles had to leave for Bencoolen. This means that Farquhar had to plan on his own, too.
Raffles planned. Yes, this the credit we can give him. But the fact that HE DID run away and NEGLECT singapore for FOUR whole YEARS remains as a fact that cannot be changed. It may have been his duty, like what you have stated, but he pushed this responsibility to Farquhar, letting him do the job instead.
Farquhar was the one to implement the actual operations, whereas Raffles only came up with the ideas, which would or would not work. Actions require action, and Farquhar implemented those ideas.
So you mean if I follow orders from people it makes me a founder?If I was the commander of an army I gave the command and the proper strategy while you to do work.Without my planning you wouldn't know the proper strategy. It doesn't mean that if i do the work I get the rights
What has the commander of an army have to do with this? And commanders are never given a strategy for combat. They themselves are the ones who create the strategy. Is your example even related to the question?
After all the problems he had solved he did not do anything about the opium dens,crimes and vices.If he had done something about it I would have voted for Farquhar
He invited the immigrants from Malacca to come and trade and stationed an office at St. John’s Island to inform the trading ships passing by about the settlement in Singapore.
Farquar dealt with every day problems during the early years of Singapore.He also attempted to know the people and understood malay, whereas Raffles hardly communicated with the people.
Well okay but how will it affect of being a founder i am sure Raffles did the main contribution to Singapore like developing it.. Farquar juz took in charge of it ?
Farquar weeded out many problems, such as the rat and centipede infestation. It took only a few days for Farquar to finish destroying the infestation, whereas Raffles did not do anything about the problem at all.
Farquhar was the one that played the role of a 'mother' to Singapore.He contributed more to Singapore than Raffles supporting the fact that he was the founder of Singapore.
Why on earth would a mother be considered as a demon? Unless you are looking at it from another point of view namely the Demon's point of view, if so of course the good stuff that a mother does would seem 'evil' to you
Simple. Because Raffles(bluntly put) 'ditched' Singapore for bencoolen and left Farquhar fend for the country. an example would be a divorced mother being left to take care of a child alone. Do you know that is hard? multiply that by a 100-10000 times and you'll get the difficulty of raising a country.
Simple. Because Raffles(bluntly put) 'ditched' Singapore for bencoolen and left Farquhar fend for the country. an example would be a divorced mother being left to take care of a child alone. Do you know that is hard? multiply that by a 100-10000 times and you'll get the difficulty of raising a country. Raffles was just the irresponsible father that left the mother and child alone.
Simple. Because Raffles(bluntly put) 'ditched' Singapore for bencoolen and left Farquhar fend for the country. an example would be a divorced mother being left to take care of a child alone. Do you know that is hard? multiply that by a 100-10000 times and you'll get the difficulty of raising a country.
Simple. Because Raffles(bluntly put) 'ditched' Singapore for bencoolen and left Farquhar fend for the country. an example would be a divorced mother being left to take care of a child alone. Do you know that is hard? multiply that by a 100-10000 times and you'll get the difficulty of raising a country.
Farquhar was the one to take charge of the new settlement and keep it running against all odds after British presence was introduced, as Raffles had to return to Bencoolen.
How does that relate to what we have been talking about? You say that Farquhar was the one to take charge of the new settlement and keep it running against all odds, but it does not mean that Farquhar founded Singapore, he just kept the new settlement running, but the actual founder was Raffles. He laid the foundation for the new settlement and let Farquhar do the rest of the easy job of running it.
How is running a population is easy? It is easy to build houses but harder to keep it operational for a long time. In this case, Farquhar had the most difficult task of managing Singapore and keep it running.
Running a country is never easy. It is a very huge responsibility and whenever something about corruption pops up in the country, the Prime Minister/President is the person who takes the most flak. If you think that running a country is that easy, there wouldn't be any stories of politicians like Gandhi going through hardship just to get self-independence.
Raffles unjustly removed Farquhar from his position in Singapore and accused him of ' being too close to the local population '. I think that it is unfair that a person who contributed so much to Singapore's development be unjustly sent off like that.
I think Raffles was right to remove Farquhar from his position as he was 'being too close to the local population'. If Farquhar was too close to the citizens, the decisions made by him may be affected, since he may be already close to them and care about what they want, not what is good for them.
I agree. Farquhar needed to sell opium and encouraged gambling in order raise much needed revenue for the country. It was due to Raffles' idea of trying to convince his superiors that Singapore needed very little money, but perform well.
So he decided to give Farquhar little money, so Farquhar resorted to these techniques in order to raise money.
William Farquhar was sacked. Despite his many positive achievements in the formative period of Singapore's development, he adopted measures in his administration which conflicted with Raffles' instructions, so a lot of people would just ignore Farquhar's contribution and credit them to Raffles
Are you saying that a person who did his best to fulfill his superior's instructions and helped him in many other ways should be prosecuted? How is this related to the topic we are debating about?
As lindsay says raffles IS the boss and raffles had plans for the country. And these plans were 'ruined' by farquhar doesn't he have the right to sack him? As a boss he has a good status and shows that he can do a lot to with his position. Probably more contacts than farquhar, and money
Don't make me laugh man.You seem to assume Raffles is right all the time and all his plans are perfect. If your boss was asking you to kill all your co-workers would you do it?
He did not mention anything like that. Raffles also contributed, but it is significantly lesser compared to Farquhar's contributions, which is keeping a country running.
Could you please state that in what way did Raffles contribute to Singapore, other than the Town Plan, which actually involved forcing people off their land?
How does that relate to what we have been talking about? He just merely protected Singapore from Dutch attacks and attracted traders to Singapore, so does that mean that if I protect a poor country from attacks, I am considered its founder? Also, all he did was the continue what Raffles left behind for him, which means that he may already had some help with attracting traders to Singapore, and also, Raffles also wanted to attract traders to Singapore, but he had to return to Bencoolen, so he only attracted a few traders, and Farquhar just continued. Which means that Farquhar is not the actual founder of Singapore. It should be Raffles as he already did all the underlying work and also the foundation of the Singapore Settlement.
How is defending Singapore from Dutch attacks considered "mere"? He had to defend an entire nation from hostile forces. If he had not done that, Singapore could have been taken over from by Dutch. And what evidence do you have that Raffles helped attract more traders to Singapore?
He would have not listened to Raffles if he thought it was not a good idea. For example would you listen to a friend teach you if your ideas were better and correct?
Besides not listening to what people say can get you exiled? Lets say you din't do your homework. The teacher then has the right to kick you out of the school? Sounds a bit harsh if you ask me.
When you like something very much, you would do anything right? So in this case, Farquhar cared for Singapore and sold opium to make more money to help Singapore develop.
He needed to raise money to further develop Singapore. Raffles wanted to convince the East India Company that Singapore needed little money and gave back a lot of money back. So he gave Farquhar the near impossible task of running a country with a lack of funds. Farquhar had to resort to selling opium and gambling so he had enough money to run Singapore. If he had not done that, all of Raffles' hard work would have gone to waste.
Faruhar carried out the 'grand plan' of Raffles'. Raffles practically just sat there and watched it all go, not even lifting a finger to help. It doesn't matter if Raffles was the head of the so-called operation, Farquhar was the one to DEVELOP Singapore to what it is today.
How does this relate to William Farquhar has as the rightful founder of Singapore? If he is well loved by the people does not mean he is the founder of Singapore
Farquhar might have done his ceremony using his own expenses.Are you trying to implement that by having more affection you are the founder of an island
Why would he spend money on his own farewell party? He was obviously reluctant to leave as shown by the court battle in which he wanted to go back to Singapore.
There were pests like centipedes and rats all over the island. These pests hurt some people. The rats also destroyed the food supplies. Tigers were also a threat to the people here. He solved it by giving rewards were given to those people who killed these pests.
How is that related to the question? Just because you can get rid of centipede and rat infestations(which I doubt) does not really relate to the topic right?
In that context you are quite right. But i would like to point out one thing. Solving problems is not the only thing that makes you a founder. Solving one problem for one person does not make a difference. Farquhar solved MANY problems for MANY people
Farquhar contributed significantly, even forking out his own money to start up the colony carved out of the jungle, by first offering money as an incentive for people to hunt and to exterminate rats and centipedes. Raffles did nothing of that sort.
Faquhar solved the problems in Singapore using cash from his own pocket. When Singapore was once infested with rats and centipedes, Farquhar rewarded the people with coins for every pest they catch. This solved the problem quickly, as he held to his promise.
He paid using his own money to solve the problems in Singapore. He did not feel selfish, and this proves that he did not do these things for Singapore just for the salary.
There were a lot of pests at that time, and the people were suffering from them. Raffles wasn't around, and William had to think of a solution himself.
Without William Farquhar Singapore would have perished. Only because William was there to govern the country, Singapore continued to exist. Raffles left to govern another country.
Agreed and for Farquhar here is an example : He helped negotiate the provisional agreement of 30 January 1819 with the local chieftain Temmengong Abdul Rahman of Johore; and the more formal Singapore Treaty of 16 February 1819, confirming the right for the British to set up a trading post.
To me, a founder would be a leader, well respected by the organisation/group he is managing. Both Raffles and Farquhar were good leaders. However, when William Farquhar was sent off to Britain, more people went to send him off than the combined number of people that sent Raffles off during the three times Raffles left Singapore. This shows that the people of Singapore respected Farquhar more than Raffles, and to them, Farquhar was a more competent leader.
Are you saying that just because more people liked Farquhar, he was a more competent leader or that a leader must be well liked in order to be competent?
What I meant is that the people supported Farquhar's decisions more than Raffles' decisions. Farquhar understood the people more than Raffles did, and was able to solve more problems than Raffles. Farquhar fulfilled the demands of the people, while Raffles forced people off their land just to make the place neater.
The people recognized William Farquhar as the founder because he was there to deal with the country's problems when Raffles failed to be there for them. William Farquhar even took money out of his own pockets to resolve certain issues. When he was forced to leave, the people sent him off with sorrow in their hearts.
Raffles did leave some policies and plans that were important for Singapore's growth before he left. Raffles also had to leave as his boss told him too. If others were to use their own money to help the country or development, does that mean they are the founders too? And being popular does not support Faquhar as the founder of Sinagpore.
Raffles doesn’t care about the citizens, doesn’t spare a thought at all.
So what if he discovered the island majulah singapura, he did not help in the least in singapore’s development. so why in the world should he deserve the title of ‘singapore’s founder’?
Farquhar developed the island, with all his ideas contributing to the development.
Why are you saying Raffles did not care for the citizens? Please elaborate or give me an example. If raffles really did not care for Singapore, why would he bother planning for it in the first place?
Raffles did not care that much for the citizens as much as Farquhar. Farquhar learnt malay to communicate better with the locals and fixed many everyday problems. Raffles did nothing. He only made a town plan. He set up Singapore because of its location for Britain, not the citizens there.
No, that is not true. Raffles planned and visioned Singapore to be well developed according to Raffles Town Plan. He decided that Singapore would be a well-developed colonial country rather than one of those asian countries with slavery, cockfighting, murders, etc.
William Farquhar had helped more citizen of Singapore than Raffles did. Raffles was just more of the idea man. William Farquhar was more of a founder of Singapore than Raffles.
Can you provide evidence that Farquhar helped more of the citizens than Raffles? The ideas are the base for Farquhar's contributions. Without a base, how can you hope to build?
Both William and the locals benefitted from it. Their communication is improved, therefore, they can understand each other perfectly, and can work together properly.
Why are you saying that? Does that mean that just because Farquhar made the initiative to communicate with the locals, he is considered the founder of Singapore?
Raffles neglected Singapore when he went around conquering other 'more useful' countries for about FOUR years, leaving all the work to Farquhar to settle. Plus, to drive my point further, the countries that were run by Raffles all ended up BADLY. This shows that Raffles was a bad developer of the country.
Well if Farquhar was not afraid of his superiors and decided to do whats best for Singapore he had a choice. Same with Raffles, being called back is just an excuse.
Raffles came and left Singapore, returning after a long period of time. Farquar stayed here all the time, and solved many problems. Raffles did not do much at all compared to Farquar.
It is clear that Stamford Raffles was the basis for the idea but the implementation was left to Farquhar so i believe he is the rightful founder of Singapore. Raffles was just the 'idea man' before the founding but was summoned to Bencoolen by his superiors and did not have much contribution to the founding of Singapore.
William Farquhar stayed in Singapore longer than Raffles, so Farquhar had more time to get to know the people more, to earn the trust of the people, to find out the problems that the people were facing and to solve those problems
If I stay at home for a day am I going to take more time to get to know the people more, to earn the trust of the people, to find out the problems that the people were facing and to solve those problems?
William Farquhar was removed from his position by Raffles because Farquhar had grown too close to the people. However, knowing the people well is necessary to help Farquhar solve the problems faced by the people.
When Farquhar left Singapore, more people were there to send him off than Raffles. This shows that the people recognized Farquhar as their founder, not Raffles
It is not the amount of people, but the celebration is better compared to the one Raffles had. This shows that the people loved and acknowledged him more compared to Raffles.
Not Raffles because right after the treaty was signed raffles left for four years so Farquahr had to stay and be in charge of the settlement in singapore. So even if Raffles found singapore and gave it to the british, Raffles only found an island, but Farquhar actually founded SINGAPORE and made it into the colonial singapore we all know and love.
well the definition of founder discussed in class that day that founder was not the person who discovers the place but he is the key in the development of the place and raffles came to singapore and established it on a global level...although it may have been farquhar who suggest this to raffles
Are you saying that a person can be considered a founder just because he did the grunt work? If so, why does the contractor get more salary then the workers at the construction site. The workers obviously do more than their bosses yet they get less
so you are saying that since Raffles is the boss, he should have more rights over the founding of the land? No. Because what we discussed in class about a founder is that he has to put the citizens first, not just sit back and relax and do NOTHING. A founder takes action. Not sit there and just TALK.
How is this related to what we are talking about? Anyone can establish a school, as long as they have the resources. And how does establishing a school make a person founder of a country?
Even though Raffles sacked Farquhar when he came back to Singapore, this was because Farquhar was adopting measures that were not approved by Raffles. I believe Farquhar was adopting measures that were indirectly harmful to the population and Raffles sacked him for the best interests of Singapore's population at heart
On what authority are you basing your argument? How did you know Raffles sacked Farquhar with the best interests of Singapore at heart and not sack him due to other reasons? And what are some examples of the measures that Farquhar made that were indirectly harmful to the population?
From what I know, Raffles sacked Farquhar based on the fact that Farquhar did not exactly follow the plan that he had done up for Singapore, but instead changed it a little-->putting the PEOPLE'S interests at heart. While Raffles just wants to stick to his plans, THINKING it will benefit the people of Singapore. So on what grounds has Raffles to sack Farquhar?
It was undoubtedly Raffles' ambition and vision which led him to search for another British base in the Straits of Malacca, and to select Singapore as the best location to achieve British economic and strategic objectives in the region. Without Raffles, it is likely that Singapore would have remained a sparsely inhabited island, on the margins of the Dutch colonial empire in the East Indies.
Yes, he did leave some pans and policies. But in the end, did he carry it out? What would the consequences be if Farquhar wasn't there to CARRY OUT his plans and modify it for the good of the people of Singapore, having the citizens' interests at heart?
Although Farquhar was said to be the one who stayed in Singapore to support its development, Raffles provided the planning, the strategizing, and was the one to select Singapore as another British base, giving early Singapore support of the British. If William Farquhar was to be proclaimed the founder because he did the "grunt work", shouldn't the supervisor of a construction site get the most commission, instead of the contractor? And besides, Raffles left Singapore under the orders of his superiors and he did not leave of free will
Do you have proof that Raffles provided detailed strategies and plans or Singapore? And if what you say is true, that means the leader of Britain is the founder of Singapore, not Raffles.
Some would say that raffles left singapore for a few years and left farquer incharge therefore he negleted us. Imagine SST Ngee Ann Poly and NTU have done so much for us and are considered the founders of us are you trying to imply that because now they are back taking care OF THEIR OWN SCHOOLS. Another good example would be if Lee Hsien Lioeng took a day off for family time would you say he is not our prime minister anymore? Would you say he is neglecting singapore? He has a life!
Raffles left Singapore for a few years, whereas the examples that you are giving are not related to the subject at all. Now, imagine the prime minister taking a day off. Would Singapore collapse? Now, Ngee Ann Poly and NTU just help to further improve on SST. SST still has to run itself. The founder has to take care of it, not depend on others related to it.
Raffles left Singapore for a few years, whereas the examples that you are giving are not related to the subject at all. Now, imagine the prime minister taking a day off. Would Singapore collapse? Now, Ngee Ann Poly and NTU just help to further improve on SST. SST still has to run itself. The founder has to take care of it, not depend on others related to it.
They have both very important jobs by the way, and live hard lives. I am just trying to state an example to be referred to and an argument to a point I have seen.
All SST Ngee Ann Poly and NTU has done is to groom us in our studies. Are they in your whole life? No. Besides, a human cannot have a founder. You own your body! Lee Hsien Long taking a day off is insignificant to all the days he were present. Raffles absent for many years is considered significant to the 200 days he spent in Singapore. You don't make sense!!!
Raffles found that Farquhar had done a bad job of raising the city of Singapore, he also introduced opium selling into Singapore in order to raise more money to build Singapore.
Are you saying that William Farquhar's contributions were bad? or just that Raffles introducing opium selling were better than William Farquhar good contributions?
If Farquhar had done a bad job of 'raising' the city of Singapore, then Raffles did worse. Not only because he left Singapore to Farquhar, the countries of which Raffles took care of were in dire straits.
Do you mean that it's fair for Raffles, who just signed the treaty and ran off, to receive more credit than Farquhar, who went through tight budgets to make a better life for our forefathers?
Does that mean that by only signing a treaty, you can become a founder with no other contribution? I would say that the founder would be the one which contributed more to the nation in its early years, which is Willian Farquhar.
Sir Raffles is the rightful founder because ,he increased the economy of Singapore by using the Straits of Malacca as a trading route. He established free trade and thus many people came to Singapore to trade with each other, boosting Singapore's economy.
What is the point of that statement? If what you are saying is true, anyone that increases the economy is a founder. And how does using the Straits of Malacca as a trading route to increase the economy makes a person as a founder?
Raffles conceived a town plan to remodel Singapore into a modern city. The plan consisted of separate areas for different ethnic groups and provision of other facilities such as roads, schools and lands for government buildings. In October 1822, a Town Plan Committee was formed by Raffles to oversee the project.
Raffles established local magistrate in Singapore.This local magistrate led to activities such as public gambling and slavery to be controlled Farquar protected Singapore from the Dutch attacks and attracted traders to Singapore while Raffles was away.
Raffles had a vision for Singapore that it will be an orderly, elegant, rational and modern and he worked towards it. And while Raffles was gone, Farquhar only help to modify Singapore a little.
Raffles had a vision for Singapore that it will be an orderly, elegant, rational and modern and he worked towards it. And while Raffles was gone, Farquhar only help to modify Singapore a little.
She is not assuming..."Raffles had a VISION for Singapore...."
Raffles conceived a town plan to remodel Singapore into a modern city. The plan consisted of separate areas for different ethnic groups and provision of other facilities such as roads, schools and lands for government buildings. In October 1822, a Town Plan Committee was formed by Raffles to oversee the project.
To be able to have a succeful trading port you must have good contacts with many people and raffles had those contacts without him we would not have a trading port at all! I would like to mention that raffles had all the important qualities of a founder and he was in good position to do so. He invested a lot and we therefore credit him as our founder! We say Obama is the “founder” of health reform WHY because he was in such a high position and he could do something like invest money time and effort in such a project.
On 28 January 1819,Raffles came to Singapore. When Raffles saw the good location of Singapore and he signed a agreement with the Sultan of Johor on behalf of the British East India Company on February 1819 to use the southern part of Singapore as a British trading post and settlement.
Raffles was the person who signed a treaty with the Temenggong and also the Sultan Hussien, and not William Farquhar. I agree that William Farquhar was the one that remained in Singapore to keep it running and also developed it further, but Raffles was the one who gave him the position because he had to leave and return to Bencoolen, also, he was the one who laid out the foundation of Singapore's Development, so he should be considered a founder.
A founder should be devoted to the country and do what is best for it. Raffles should not have left a huge pile of work for Farquhar and leave, and only returning some time later. He should stay in Singapore to continue helping in the development of the country. You seem to be assuming that a founder can just leave the work to his assistants after directing the job.
Even though it was Farquhar who was responsible for most of Singapore's development, it was Raffles who wanted to make Singapore a trading port, so if Raffles hadn't set eyes on Singapore at that time, Farquhar wouldn't have been able to accomplish this.
When Raffles came back to Singapore after leaving Farquar in charge . Farquar had done something bad.. He started opium selling in order to make money..
Even though it is true that Raffles did not work closely with the population to develop Singapore, he provided plans, ideas and was going to put them in action by himself when his superiors ordered him to Bencoolen. Hence it was common sense for Raffles to leave his subordinate to finish his ideas
The Singapore Treaty is signed between Raffles,Sultan Hussein and the Temenggong with Commandant under the accompanying seven ships witnessing the event.
Just because you signed a Treaty does not make you a founder right? Treaties are made by countries everywhere, yet there are no founders as a result of them.
The Singapore Treaty is signed between Raffles,Sultan Hussein and the Temenggong with Commandant under the accompanying seven ships witnessing the event.
It was Raffles that led the expedition in order to find a new trading port. Farquhar only tagged along with Raffles. So even if Farquhar did not come Raffles would have still founded Singapore.
If Farquhar had not come along, there would be other subordinates of Raffles to take his place. Therefore, logically, Farquhar was not an irreplaceable person in Singapore's founding. But without Raffles ideas, Singapore would be very different. Although Farquhar did affect Singapore's development, it was minimal. His contributions were still largely dependent on Raffles ideas and aspirations
Are you sure Farquhar is easily replaceable? Are you sure that Singapore will not be different because Farquhar is not around? Farquhar stopped infestations in a few days. Are you sure anyone has the guts to use his own pocket money to get rid of infestations? I suggest you stop using guesswork and relook into Farquhar's contributions and see whether you think anyone could have done Farquhar's job as well, if not better.
Can you rephrase that, please? How about if Raffles had not travelled the ocean, he may not have founded modern Singapore and William Farquhar may not even know where Singapore was, or maybe he may not even contribute to any settlement at all.
Think, if Farquhar had not followed. Raffles had to leave for Bencoolen shortly after, whatever he had planned for would immediately have crumbled as he left for a long time and his plans would have no action taken. It would all perish as a horrible experiment.
FOUNDER IS NOT A PERSON WHO “DISCOVERS” A PLACE if so i can say the prince Sanila Utama is the founder of singapore!(this for some who say farquhar saw the island first) And I do know that farquer has been very involved in this help and sometimes even does all the work but let me remind you that being raffles “assistant” he still had to consult raffles and raffles had all authority over Singapore therefore he was given credit. Then i would like to ask u a question why then does the names “raffles institution” “raffles hospital” raffles medical clinics”
You seem to be implying that Raffles could have been sitting around and just letting Farquhar do the work and Raffles would still have been given credit for whatever Farquhar has achieved for Singapore just because Raffles had full authority over Singapore.
When Raffles came back after a period of time, he changed rules and concepts Farquhar had set according to the people’s needs. This can show that he cares for the people.
Yes, that is when Raffles totally neglected Singapore for FOUR ENTIRE years. Assuming that Raffles did change the rules, what rules did he change, according to the people's needs?
IF YOU go live in that olden time conditions in just one month in those conditions it would be a surprise if you did not catch a disease every single day.hospitals was one thing raffles built and that would have saved so many people in those times because the living there was conditions were bad. another reason he has helped on the development
If you think that building a hospital is very great, won't Farquhar be very great too as there were pests like centipedes and rats all over the island. These pests hurt some people. The rats also destroyed the food supplies. Tigers were also a threat to the people here. Farquhar rewarded money to those who killed the pest and the money came from himself
It was undoubtedly Raffles' ambition and vision which led him to search for another British base in the Straits of Malacca, and to select Singapore as the best location to achieve British economic and strategic objectives in the region. Without Raffles, it is likely that Singapore would have remained a sparsely inhabited island, on the margins of the Dutch colonial empire in the East Indies.
Raffles founded Singapore and Farquhar was just a subordinate for Raffles. So it was normal that Raffles gave he duty of turning Singapore into a successful city and left the city to Farquhar to handle.
He revived the cultural heritage of the region by setting up schools for the Chinese and Malays and did a lot for the people while Farquhar just wanted to gain control through his actions.
How does this affect the founding of Singapore? No matter which date it was founded, Singapore was still founded. I don't think there would be any changes if SIngapore was founded later or earlier.
Raffles was the one who stopped Singapore from being taken by the Dutch, as the Dutch were upset that Singapore would be taken by the British. but Raffles stop the Dutch from taking Singapore. If it had not been for Raffles, the Dutch would have taken Singapore.
May i ask HOW exactly does that make him the founder? lets say the army stops other countries from taking over Singapore, does that mean the army is (in fact, are!)
HE HAS A BOSS(RAFFLES) HE HAS TO FOLLOW HIM AND NOT GO ABOUT DOING ANYTHING ELSE IF THEN WHY CANT FARQUHAR HELP SINGAPORE AFTER HE WAS FIRED!!! I SAID HE DOES NOT HAVE THE POSITION TO BE THE FOUNDER!!!!
Farquhar has a boss!(raffles) he has to follow raffles and not go about doing anything else if then why cant farquhar help singapore after he was fired? I say again you do need to be in a certain position to be a founder as time, money, effort is all invested. You must know people who would help you.
Farquhar has a boss!(raffles) he has to follow raffles and not go about doing anything else if then why cant farquhar help singapore after he was fired? I say again you do need to be in a certain position to be a founder as time, money, effort is all invested. You must know people who would help you.
He did go to court to argue to be reinstated. That is one way he tried to get back to Singapore and help. You can't say that he did not do anything else. His appeal was crush by the judge so what could he have done??
Even if he got reinstated , he will not be suddenly called the founder.The judge is right!He did not listen to Raffles orders and because of that , got fired.
Farquhar made some decisions on his own to help Singapore as well. He paid the people out of his own pocket to settle the issues in Singapore. What would happen if Farquhar was not around?
A person who establishes an institution or settlement
Raffles was the person who established that Singapore should be a trading port, and he was the one with the visions and goals for Singapore. I do agree that Faquhar contributed alot, maybe even more than Raffles did in the growth of Singapore as a country, but Raffles was the person who FOUNDED it. Also, during the reign of Faquhar, he allowed gambling, cock fighting, secret societies and crimes to take place without harsh punishment. Thus its somewhat incorrect to say that his contributions were without flaw. However, when Raffles came back to Singapore, he decided to put in place law and order to prevent this, and so we can see that he did actually contribute to the growth of Singapore as well.
No.If you research about FarQuhar.He didn't do anything to help Singapore while Raffles was away,instead of doing anything he just made a big mess and allowed things like vice,crimes and gambling dens carry on.
Raffles was the boss of farquhar and thus should be the founder of Singapore sine he was the leader and had more rights than farquhar. In addition, farquhar did not carry out his duties responsibilily and allowed slaves, cockfighting and murders everywhere in Singapore. Singapore was so poorly developed that Raffles was unhappy.
Raffles had a vision for Singapore that it will be an orderly, elegant, rational and modern and he worked towards it. And while Raffles was gone, Farquhar developed Singapore poorly causing Raffles to feel dissappointed.
Founding means someone who put a country into hands and control it, the boss. Raffles was the one who stopped Singapore from being taken by the Dutch, as the Dutch were upset that Singapore would be taken by the British. but Raffles stop the Dutch from taking Singapore. If it had not been for Raffles, the Dutch would have taken Singapore.
