I think that social media definitely has not make us less social. Instead, it has made us more sociable.

I feel that social media is a platform for all kinds of people to keep it touch with their friends and loved ones, and it definitely does not make people less sociable. In the past, the physical environment is a factor that does not allow us to connect with friends under certain circumstances. However, now with social media, we can easily check up on our friends despite the physical circumstances that may be a hindrance.

Since there are so many entertainment on social medias like Facebook and entertainment, it can spark a new and interesting topic when we meet up with friends in real life, helping us grow deeper in our friendships and have a blast.

The internet is also a very big community. Since year 2000, we have seen more than 700 million people using the internet in Asia alone. With such a wide and broad connection, we will be able to find long lost friends and even relatives through these social medias and catch up with them virtually.

All these will make social media users to want to connect with the people around them. Therefore I think that social media can help people grow closer with their close ones and not make them less social.

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.

Can you give me evidence of Raffles "sitting there and watched it all go".

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 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.

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

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.

Before leaving Singapore, Raffles did leave some plans and policies that were important for the development of the settlement.