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

In my opinion, I feel that present does non deserve to be called strander and constructor of Singapore. I have a duo of answers to run on this. Firstly, the word founder means to establish fewthing or contrive the basis of something. raffle was non the establisher of Singapore, Sang Nila Utama was. As for the builder of Singapore, Raffles does have a bit of credit, however, some credit is needed to be given to the former Residents of Singapore, Colonel William Farquhar, and Dr washstand Crawfurd, traders that came to Singapore, and lastly, the Malayan or Orang Laut that lived on Singapore before Raffles landed. Secondly, the Raffles Town Plan. Raffles had the Malays positioned on the northerly cave in of the Singapore river, the Europeans had the central portion, while the Chinese had the grey part. He drew up the plan because he found place that many immigrants had settled near the Singapore River, increment in a disorderly manner. This should not have been do becau se it would not promote racial harmony as the unlike races lived amongst themselves. Raffles in this way did not build up the racial harmony, but weaken it. Instead, what Raffles should have make is that he should done is that he should have expanded the playing eye socket around the Singapore River and built more houses.

Wouldnt that be another(prenominal) selection other than seperating the different races? Thirdly and lastly, his concern for Singapore. Raffles shut up visited Singapore thrice in the last five years, give way only nine months here. In this way, it showed us that he was not concerned about Si ngapore. If he was away, he would have at le! ast made some time to visit the island he regards as its founder. Colonel William Farquhar, from 1819 to 1923, worked alongside the Malay rulers to... If you want to give a full essay, order it on our website: BestEssayCheap.com

If you want to get a full essay, visit our page: cheap essay