Proud of me..

yeah..by now, finally finish ma singapore study assignment after doing so many research and paid several visits to the library(so unlike me)...

here is the full text..read it if u cant sleep, i m sure it's much more effective than sleeping pills...

As most of people would have thought, the starting point of the history of the small island at the south end of the Malay Peninsula, which is now known as the republic of Singapore, is on that fateful day of 28 January 1819. However in the view of history, the debate over that starting point has never ceased to exist. If we refer to the ancient Singapore that is beyond 1819, the Sejarah Melayu or Malay Annuals, a historical account of myth that exists on the land for centuries, would declare the founder of Singapore as Sri Tri Buana or Sang Nila Utama, also known as Iskander to the Malays. If we refer to the founder of the colonial Singapore, the answer to that would be undeniably “Raffles”. In the articles “Temasik and Singapura: An Extract from the Malay Annuals” and “Stamford Raffles-The Man” both accounts the founding of Singapore in great detail but in different timeline. Would there be any cross over between the two time lines that striking similarity occurs or would there be any similar interest shared between Sri Tri Buana and Stamford Raffles? The answer to those questions will then be important for the understanding of Singapore and its history.

Although Sejarah Melayu consists of myths that could not taken into account for historical analysis, nevertheless certain facts presented in the annual could still be verified through archeological excavation and the ancient documents from secondary sources. However the motive behind the decision for setting up a settlement on this island still remains unclear. The name of Singapura is popularly attributed to the Sri Tri Buana, after seeing a strange animal running into the jungle. He was told the animals could be a singa, or lion. In the context of Sejarah Melayu, it barely mentions the why such a decision is made but presents it as a random event that occurs when Sri Tri Buana paid a visit to the island.

If we read more critically into history, we will soon realize that it’s not a random event. Despite Singapore was not a very important port during the time, it’s a good place harboring the Malay rulers on the run from regional political intrigues. This is the case for Sri Tri Buana. From the declining Srivijiaya kingdom (7-11th century), Sri Tri Buana “refused to acknowledge the overlordship of the Majapahits (1294-early 16th century A.D.) in java”, thus he chose to run away to keep himself alive. Hence the founding of Singapore by Sri Tri Buana is not a fairy-tale like story written in Sejarah Melayu. To him, Singapore is a strategic base to continue his ruling. Singapore did flourish as a city as Sejarah Melayu pointed out “ Singapura became a great city, to which foreigners resorted in great numbers so that the fame of the city and its greatness spread throughout the world.” This can be verified from secondary sources such as Tao Yi Tchih Lueh that talks about the war between Temasek and Siam in 1330s. This helps to trace the time line back to the possible beginning of founding of Singapore. The account of Sejarah Melayu only presents parts of the entire geopolitical situation during the time.

In 18th and 19th centuries, European powers were competing with each other in the South East Asia for greater profit. Raffles was appointed to find a trading base in the region to secure the British trading route to China. This leads to the founding of the colonial Singapore and Stamford Raffles is commemorated by various road and place names, and institutions. He is a visionary and dedicated man as portrayed in the article “ Stamford Raffles-The Man”. However, despite all his contribution in the founding of Singapore, I feel that his role should be reassessed to give a more holistic picture of the history.

In the article, Raffles is said to already have Singapore in mind as a British trading station, despite Farquhar suggested to survey Carimon Island. His visionary insight is finally paid off by the success of Singapore. However, from the other sources his discovery of Singapore is rather filed as a coincidence than his long vision into future. According to Dr John Crawfurd, who first visited Singapore in February 1822 and then become the second Resident, “Singapore did not occur to either to Raffles or anyone else at first”. After Raffles found the Carimon Island unsuitable, his hydrographer, Captain Daniel Ross pointed out to Raffles on 27 January 1819 that a spot at the mouth of Johor river he considered more eligible than Carimon, and the next day became a historic meeting between Raffles and Temenggong on this spot that is known as Singapoura. “For the first time, the advantages and superiority of its locality presented themselves”(Kuala Lumpur: Oxford Univ. Press repr. 1971). Hence I feel that Raffles is more of a great leader with humble and faithful subordinates rather than a visionary strategist, and the writer of “Stamford Raffles-The Man” painted a highly favorable picture of Raffles.

Raffles is much honored as the founder and architect of the British “factory” in Singapore. He is indeed a great man for whom Singapore would never have existed. However too much credit has been given to him such that contributions by other early residents of Singapore are made trivial. The success of Singapore is not on the shoulder of Raffles alone. The contribution by the first two British residents Farquhar and Crawford along with the known Malay, Arab, Bugis, Chinese, Indian, and European notables, and the numberless, unnamed pioneering settlers who worked diligently to build up the prosperity of the island. However, their contributions seemed unaccounted for in the history, and Raffles earned most respect. In fact, the dispute over who is the real founder of Singapore continues aboard. Farquhar after his dismissal claimed that he was at least a co-founder, and on his tombstone in Perth, Scotland, it is inscribed that he “founded” the settlement of Singapore! Crawford is the man made Singapore British, by signing the Anglo-Malay treaty of August 1824 with Sultan Hussein and Temenggong, turning Singapore into a British possession. Singaporeans may have only remembered the name “Raffles” and the names like “Farquhar” and “Crawford” are fading away despite their equally important contribution to the success of Singapore during the colonial times.

In conclusion, the social memory shapes how the history we view. Form the readings, we see how it works in defining Singapore. Undeniably, controversy still remains and debates will continue, but only through the process of scrutinizing those social memories and other sources of information, we will then get a more holistic view of history of Singapore. The white statue of Raffles, beside the Parliament House, by the Singapore river, will remain tall and inspiring to the people living on this land, leaving us with questions how Singapore has come to what she is today.