Sir Thomas Stamford Raffles Essay Example

Sir Thomas Stamford Raffles Paper Sir Thomas Stamford Raffles is one of the key persons who are responsible to the founding of modern Singapore. He played an important role in forming a British Settlement, Singapore, in the Melaka straits despite facing rejections, such as Dutch or even resistance in London itself. He is a controversial person even in his time. Hence there is no doubt that there are lots of information about him and founding of Singapore in the internet. However, how do we assess these websites for its appropriateness towards scholarly research is the main objective of this essay. According to The Sheridan Libraries an appropriate source for scholarly research would have information such as â€Å"authorship, publishing body, point of view, referral to other sources, verifiability and currency† . In the case of internets sources, at least we could have an idea who is the author and a way to contact, such as telephone or email, to clarify the information provided in the internet or even arranged an interview. The first source regarding Sir Thomas Stamford Raffles and the founding of Singapore which I’m going to examine is taken from Wikipedia. Let just put aside for a moment the authorship and verifiability of the passage, and for a moment assume it is what it is. Wikipedia provides a very detailed explanation of Sir Thomas Stamford Raffles. The information in Wikipedia is like a series of events that arranged chronologically. This is by far a more interesting and captivating way for the readers. Nonetheless, the events and points that provided by Wikipedia are also very broad. The general impression that I gained, from Wikipedia, that summarize who Sir Thomas Stamford Raffles was, was a hardworking, wise, fair, rational and both lucky and unfortunate person. We will write a custom essay sample on Sir Thomas Stamford Raffles specifically for you for only $16.38 $13.9/page Order now We will write a custom essay sample on Sir Thomas Stamford Raffles specifically for you FOR ONLY $16.38 $13.9/page Hire Writer We will write a custom essay sample on Sir Thomas Stamford Raffles specifically for you FOR ONLY $16.38 $13.9/page Hire Writer When I read the passage, I generally felt that all he had done were good things. He was a very hardworking child, despite the early death of his father. He was lucky enough to be hired by East India Company and had the opportunity to expose himself to South East Asia, and based on his talent, picked up the native language, Malay, and good enough to impress the Governor to promote him as a Resident of Java at the age of 30. He abolished slave system, led an expedition to restore Borobudur, replaced Dutch forced agriculture system with land tenure, founded a more administrative Singapore and throughout the end, I elt sorry with his early death and his lost of family members. All the events are centralizing in the goodness of Sir Thomas Stamford Raffles. However, aren’t these very subjective opinions from a historical point of view? In the passage, it mentioned â€Å"considered Farquhar unfit for the position of Resident, so Raffles took direct control with a heavy hand. † The Wikipedia source didn’t really stated why William Farquhar was unfit for the position. Did he done something wrong that suffer the indigenous people? Did he make a lost in financial during his tenure? We may get some answer for these questions from how well the author think Singapore did as soon as the take over from British until the return of Raffles at year 1822 base on the paragraph â€Å"†¦as Singapore grew at an exponential rate, the Dutch gave up their claim on the island†¦Ã¢â‚¬  This in certain account created ambivalence from the author, and let just assume what both lines are true. Maybe the author is trying to tone down the confrontation between Farquhar and Raffles. By providing a reason for the discord, which reasonably present with a glim, it seems what Raffles did is reasonable. Besides that, under the â€Å"Founding of Singapore† session in the Wikipedia source, Farquhar was only credited for securing of British possession in the Riao’s area. This is by far had neglected his role in the founding of Singapore. The second source that I am going to examine is a website from USP, NUS. Once again, put aside verifiability and authorship. Let examine the passage’s point of view towards Raffles and the founding of Singapore. The passage gave a more general view of Raffles. At least at the first glance of the passage, I won’t have a feeling that he is almighty. Just take an example, â€Å"†¦Raffles became a subject of controversy and a target of attack, from British as well as Dutch adversaries. To some, Raffles was an admired reformer, who wanted to abolish the slave trade, and ameliorate the lot of the people. To others, he was simply a young and ambitious schemer. † This paragraph gives me a feeling that he is a controversial figure even during his time. The word â€Å"ambitious schemer† also reflects that he may not be as pure as a saint. All these that I have mentioned, didn’t come to me when I was reading the source from Wikipedia. With these, in certain account, there is a different in objectivity of the author of these two sources. Besides that, â€Å"it was Farquhar who worked alongside the Malay rulers for four years to secure the survival and growth of the British settlement on Singapore Island†¦Ã¢â‚¬  gives a general account on what Farquhar had contributed to the development of Singapore. This just gives me an impression of what Singapore was at that time, and it was definitely not the sole contribution and hard work of Raffles. The source did mention an outline of the life of Raffles. The author did give a high regards on Raffles effort to abolish slavery. This can be showed â€Å"He held strongly to moral principles on the dignity and equality of human beings † . Besides that, the source also mentions two important names in the founding of Singapore, William Farquhar and Dr John Crawfurd, and credited them as â€Å"The Founders of Colonial Singapore† . This source gives an alternative view of who were possible founders, or who had at least contributed to the radical founding of early Singapore. With these additional information provided, Raffles is not the only one credited with the establishment of early Singapore and thus gives a more objective view of early history of Singapore under British possession. The third source I’m going to examine is from suit101 . This passage gives a general overview of Raffles and his involvement in Singapore. This source is a summary of his early life, his career, and also how it links to the founding of Singapore. Compare to the first two sources, this source is comparatively less detailed information. For example, â€Å"Following the hallowed English tradition of divide and conquer, Raffles and his successors †¦Ã¢â‚¬  The source didn’t mention about who are the other successor. Is it Farquhar? Is it John Crawfurd? Or is it somebody else? This source gives a very subjective view towards Raffles, â€Å"Raffles continued to enjoy a long and celebrated career in imperial administration. † How does the author know the feelings of Raffles despite so many obstacles in his tenure as stated in the first and second source? Before I choose one of these sources to be an appropriate source for scholarly historical research, let me examine the authorship of these three sources. The source from Wikipedia, apparently is edited by not a few but a lot of authors. Just a brief view in the â€Å"history† link in the wikipedia webpage toolbar, there is approximate 500 entries of editorial in the Stamford Raffles site and still counting. In some account, base on the large amount of authors, contradictory may occur and there maybe a more objective viewpoint regarding the topic, â€Å"†¦emergence of resonance will only come after experiencing some dissonance. However, this is not an appropriate source for scholarly historical research mainly because of its multi-authorship and anonymous authorship. How can we verify the source when there are anonymous authors? Meanwhile, the second source from USP weblink, was the work of an associate professor in the History Department of NUS. The author is highly qual ified and contactable. Finally, the last source, it was also from a single author, John Walsh from Mahidol University International College. In terms of verifiability, the second and third source provides a direct contact name and title to verify the content or for further research. However for the first source, Wikipedia, if the readers have any doubt of the source, they have little chance to clarify with the author. There is no direct contact number and there is little chance of knowing the name, beside username of the author or even anonymous authorship. However as an ordinary user, we can raise the mistakes in the content to the webmaster, rise in discussion or edit the page. Finally, regarding citation, both sources from Wikipedia and John Walsh didn’t provide any; presumably every word is directly from the author. Source from the USP and Wikipedia, did provide references. In certain extend, this provides the readers a way for further research of the topic. This helps the reader to verify the points and facts in the source too. In Wikipedia, the â€Å"general look† is more appealing, with pictures of Stamford Raffles and well credit where the picture’s origin. The more user appealing part of Wikipedia is its usage of Wiki software to develop its webpage, and this may be a good start for newbies and for background reading â€Å"†¦wikis should not take authoritative, but can relied upon for ‘background reading’. After assessing the qualities of these websites, source from the USP website regarding Stamford Raffles and founding of Singapore is an appropriate source for scholarly historical research. This is due to its authorship; it provides a name and a title from the author, and it ensures verifiability. The publishing body, which is the NUS website, is a well ma intained and contactable publishing body. The details provided in the source are sufficient for a person to understand Stamford Raffles and the founding of Singapore reasonably well. It also provides other possible founders or contributors to the founding of Singapore. As a conclusion, it has all the attributes of an appropriate source for scholarly historical research. Bibliography Elizabeth E. Kirk, â€Å"Evaluating Information Found on the Internet†, Sheridan Libraries (1996), 8 February 2008, http://www. library. jhu. edu/researchhelp/general/evaluating/ â€Å"Stamford Raffles†, Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. Wikimedia Foundation, Inc. (10 Aug. 2004), 17 February 2008, http://en. wikipedia. org/wiki/Stamford_Raffles Ernest C. T. Chew. The Founders of Colonial Singapore†, USP (12 October 2002), 17 February 2008, http://www. usp. nus. edu. sg/post/singapore/history/chew/founders. html John Walsh, â€Å"Raffles: Sir Stamford Raffles and the Founding of Singapore. † Suit101 (9 Jan 2004). 8 February 2008, http://www. suite101. com/article. cfm/east_asian_history/105792/1 Alvin Tan Peng Hong, â€Å"Allowing Dissonance†, The H istory Journal (1998), p. 14 Leslie Goh, â€Å"Share your knowledge or ignorance†, Straits Times (17 October 2006), 7 March 2007, http://news. independent. co. uk/world/americas/article2331980. ece Stephen Foley, â€Å"Wikipedia Hits An Identity Crisis As Student Admits Posing As Professor†, 2007 Independent News And Media Limited (7 March 2007) Noam Cohen, â€Å"A History Department Bans Citing Wikipedia As Research Source†, The New York Times (21 February 2007), 2 March 2007, http://www. nytimes. com/2007/02/21/ education/21wikipedia Marshall Poe, â€Å"The Hive†, The Atlantic Monthly (September 2006), 6 January 2007, http://www. theatlantic. com/doc/print/200609/wikipedia Stacy Schiff, â€Å"Can Wikipedia Conquer Experts†, The New Yorker (24 July 2006), 31 July 2006, http://www. newyorker. com/printables/fact/060731fa_fact