Who's Stamford Raffles?

Sir Thomas Stamford Raffles. (Painting by George Francis Joseph (1817))

This article is inspired by various speakers at the ACM Symposium: Revisiting Raffles namely Dr Farish Noor, Dr Peter Carey & Dr Mimi Savitri.

Sir Stamford Raffles, the founder of Singapore. The man that every Singaporean knows about. His voyage to the island, his agreement with the Temenggong and Tengku Hussein and his plans that developed this island into a city. 200 years on, the name “Raffles” is synonymous with class and elite, a reminder of what the English were to its colonial subjects. Yet, what we learn about Raffles in school does not do any justice to the history of the region, including Singapore. While not everyone necessarily glorifies Raffles, there is definitely a certain level of reverence for the man. Singapore has landmarks, schools, hospitals and many more places named after Raffles and this is vastly different from other nations around us that condemn their colonial masters and label them as villains that occupied their lands and subjugated the locals. Hence, with celebrations for SG Bicentennial officiated, it seems very apt to discuss this issue - Who is Raffles and how should we remember him?

A promotion for Raffles

Before his arrival in Singapore, he was involved in another major conquest: the invasion of Java. Not known to many, parts of Indonesia was once occupied by Britain and in Java, Raffles was soon thrown into the spotlight. Following the successful attack on Java, Raffles was made the Lieutenant Governor of Dutch East Indies. This promotion effectively granted him the power to rule over the former Dutch colony with as much freedom as 19th-century communications could allow the East India Company to rein him in, which is to say, quite a lot. Following his ascension to power, he mounted several successful military expeditions against local rulers to cement British rule in Java. These attacks saw savage attacks against the locals who were at times defenceless against the incoming horde, leading to countless deaths and usually culminated in the seizure of power from these local rulers and plunder of the palaces. These actions, while not unexpected of a colonial power against its would-be subjects, set the stage for how we should view Raffles. He was no different from his contemporaries. He was a functionary of the Company and he too saw the need for them to assert British dominance with war.

A justification for colonisation

With the power to rule granted to him and cemented with Javanese blood, Raffles set off to explore the land. After expeditions upon expeditions, Raffles realised that the land was once home to an ancient kingdom. His administration found a large number of ancient monuments such as Candi Prambanan and Candi Borobudur, famous sites even till today. Knowing that these sites were either Hindu or Buddhist, he concluded that the poor state these ancient monuments were in was evidence that the people of Java then could not appreciate their own history and culture and thus needed to be civilised by the Europeans but first, these sites needed to be preserved. Hence, a justification was simply created out of this belief - The locals could not preserve these monuments, hence the Europeans shall colonise these lands to help preserve them. They were not conquerors. They were curators. They were historians. They were teachers...in their eyes and their eyes only.

With knowledge, comes power

There is more to why Raffles wanted to collect all this information about the locals. It was not just to “appreciate” their culture, it was to rule them more effectively. He had people collect information about locals (culture, behaviour, occupation etc) and these formed his database. With his database, he could rule with ease as he coordinated with the now-powerless royal court to maximise the production of the local farmers to increase revenue for the Company. Raffles was not there to learn, he was there to rule and with knowledge, ruling becomes easy. He was no student of Javanese culture, he was a user and manipulator of Javanese culture as he utilised the way of living of the locals to generate greater benefits for the Company.

A voyage to Singapura

Fast forward to 1819, Raffles made the journey to Singapore and following a series of negotiations with the Temenggong and Hussein Shah, Singapore was “founded”. Generally recognised as a peaceful transfer of rule from the local rulers to the British, Singapore’s founding was simply accomplished via words, pen and paper. This creates a fairly positive impression of Raffles by present-day Singaporeans. Indeed, Raffles did contribute to Singapore’s development. He constructed schools, drew up policy plans and saw Singapore grow into a bustling port. These are repeatedly mentioned in school textbooks and definitely leaves a certain perception of Raffles. However, this does not negate the fact that colonialism was still an act of theft, robbing rights from local rulers and exploiting the lands and the people for the benefit of the people in Europe. Raffles was not aiding us, he was aiding Britain, he was aiding himself, cementing his legacy as the founder of a free port. It is not surprising that he gave himself an illustrious title following the signing of the treaty - “Agent to the Most Noble the Governor-General with the States of Rhio (Riau), Lingin and Johor”. He wanted to be remembered and to do so, he needed to be unique and had to stand out. With all this in mind now, how should we view the man?

So where does this leave us?

Personally, I do not have an answer and this is where the dilemma comes in. As Singaporeans, we are mainly concerned about Raffles’ contributions to Singapore and we seldom see him as a colonial-era company functionary whose main aim was to subjugate locals to benefit Britain. As a result of Singapore’s transfer of rule and our subsequent development into a free port, we see Raffles as a benevolent leader. Yet, just a few thousand kilometres away, the fate of the locals was so much different then. Under the orders of Raffles, countless lives were lost and this was followed by years of subjugation by the colonial powers.

So in this bipolar nature, how should we see Raffles? Do we, as Singaporeans, need to take into account his savage ways in Java and are we sugar-coating his rule in Singapore as well? These questions require answers and these answers require conversations. Hence, it is very apt that this is brought up this year as Singapore is celebrating the 200th anniversary of Raffles landing and founding of modern Singapore. As we recognise his efforts and contributions, let us all take a step back and think about how we should remember our colonial past and how Raffles should be commemorated. Meanwhile, before we can have a proper decision on this dilemma, will the real Raffles please stand up?

Perhaps we can also ask ourselves why 1819 is labelled as the year “modern Singapore” was founded that is - why modern? What is a “modern Singapore”?

Similarly, how should we view colonialism in Singapore? It’s easy to say that it is a mix of good and bad. Due to how developed Singapore is right now, it is very difficult to imagine Singapore without going through colonial rule. Would we have developed to this extent if Raffles did not land in Singapore? However, based on what we know about colonialism - the exploitation, the unjust and the violence, we can’t condone it either.

The “Raffles in Southeast Asia” exhibition is opened as of today (21 March 2019) till 28 April 2019 at the Asian Civilisations Museum, Singapore.

By Eugene Goh

Vetted by Ng Jia Yeong & Lois Kok