A British missionary, George Patterson, said that the evidence that India used to assert their authority over Aksai Chin was of poor quality, and included some "dubious" sources. Doesn't this mean that India's claim is not credible?

The British had used as many as 11 lines in the region when they were India"s colonial masters, according to the political situation. There was no officially recognized line to separate the two countries, hence each country had its own line for their territorial claims.

But getting to know people through the internet is very dangerous. There has been many cases of girls chatting up with strangers online, meets them afterwards and get sexually abused, cheated of their money or being killed. Because of this, some people are cautious and start to be less sociable individuals. This proves that the land of social media is full of peril and might make one less social than one already is.

Currently, there are many people who overuse Facebook, some so engrossed to the extent that they kill people just because the other individual unfriended them on Facebook. So tell me, with so many people using Facebook, isn't it unhealthy for some people's minds? The human body needs physical contact with others instead of communicating virtually, if a user gets so addicted that he doesn't make physical contact at all, isn't harmful for his mind?

I agree that social media has made us less social. The use of social media has distracted us from the beauty of life, like outdoor activities and hanging out with your friends. In contrast, with the use of social media, we just get cooped up at home, stuck in front of a computer or phone. For example, today the mobile phone is almost a necessity, which is inseparable from the user. In the past, to communicate with others, we have to meet face-to-face, but now with the use of social media, we can just take out our phones and text the person. By doing this, the use of mobile phones has made us really less sociable, because of all the time we spend cooped up at home and not going out to meet up with friends.

SELLING opium is not bad for the people's health. CONSUMING is.

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.

I agree. The support of the people shows how much the people appreciated him for what he had done.

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.

I agree with this point. Raffles did not help William Farquhar for this matter and many others.

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?

Your first and last statements are the same. I advise you that you should be more careful next time.

So what if he did not? Sooner or later, someone else would have discovered Singapore

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.

I agree. If more landmarks and places be named after him, more people will be more bias towards him.

So does it matter if it is an only boy's school? Doesn't this shift away from our topic?

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.

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?

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.

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?

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.

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.