Talk:Founding of modern Singapore/Archive 1

Untitled
This looks like an attempt for the History of Singapore, which is not needed. What we need is basically a detailed article, a subset of the first section of the History of Singapore article. -- Natalinasmpf 02:55, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

fhsdjkgfsehgfjksdThe founding of modern Singapore is almost the entire timeline of the history of Singapore, after all. The founding of modern Singapore begins when Raffles arrives, and halts partially during WWI, reinitiated slightly after WWI, halts completely during WWII. The Modern Singapore is finally established, and considered founded after WWII. Perhaps to be precise, is partition this article out into various sections. Slivester 16:07, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * No, not really. I believe "founding of modern Singapore" was supposed to be a detailed article on Raffles' landing and the treaty - ie. the elaboration of the first section in the History of Singapore. Its the "founding" - not "development". "Modern Singapore" is established from 1819 - not "modern" in the technological sense, but to differentiate it from Temasek and its ancient predecessors. If we were to write about the history of modern Singapore, it would be completely redundant, as we already have History of Singapore. This is supposed to be just the first section of History of Singapore - elaborated. I suppose you might have gotten confused anyway, but its Wiki policy to branch out the detail in some articles if they start to get too large (like History of Singapore) - this is one of them...ie. the Japanese Occupation of Singapore has yet to be written, but Battle of Singapore is a branched off article to detail the battle, and articles like (when we get around to actually writing them) Singapore during merger with Malaysia which would be an elaboration of the 1963-1965 section. Just like on the main Singapore article, "Culture" gets a branched off article at Culture of Singapore, etc. ;-) -- Natalinasmpf 09:33, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

To be precise, when Raffles arrives in Singapore, he established a British Port, not Singapore. Singapore was only considered founded when island of Singapore, then controlled by Malaya sultans (of which were much influent by the Dutch, the absolute dominant of South-East Asia) was ceded to Great Britain, and made an settlement. Modern Singapore is only considered founded when the British had absolute control over Singapore, of which only materialise after 1823 if I am not wrong. Thus, the founding of modern Singapore, do not begin until 1823. Raffles had intentions to make the island a possession of the British crown, but political tension between the Dutch and British were high. There were variants of modern Singapore, the present-day Republic of Singapore, and the Crown Colony of Singapore. Even right after 1823, Singapore was in fact the first state to be constituted, not quite modern.Slivester 14:35, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * That's not really the point though; the idea is (to avoid redundancy and an article fork (which we don't need) is for this to thoroughly document the first section of the History of Singapore, in detail, and expand that first section "founding of modern Singapore (1819)" (an expansion which we DO need). That's what this article is for, if I'm recalling correctly. Modern Singapore, means the era when Singapore became a port that started to trade with Europe and the greater world, as opposed to being part of Temasek or the Javanese Empire or an ancient port. Think of it. The "discovery" of the Americas was done thousands of years before Columbus, heck, even the Vikings, but its "discovery" in the sense of ushering in the European colonial era, and then later the post-colonial era, bringing the Industrial Revolution with them. In the same way, it could be "modern" in the sense of someone arriving with the knowledge of the Industrial Revolution to Singapore, and "founding" it no longer just to trade between China and India for raw goods, or hand-finished goods, but rather now industrial products. -- Natalinasmpf 19:14, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I should suppose that the article is at fault at the beginning, from the History of Singapore. Singapore is considered founded in 1823, but not modern Singapore. Its the contradictory of words used. In this case, as most published in texts, modern Singapore is considered to have been founded after Singapore became a crown colony, when the immigrants are starting to organise political activities, following the political revoluntions in many European states, and at last, the overthrowing of Qing dynasty and the rise of nationalism in China, of which had inspired much Chinese immigrants in Singapore to protest against the colonial master. The point here is, modern Singapore, in your sense, is the movement from primitive lifestyle to the western lifestyle, of which was brought about by the British. That is however, the very first step of founding the state of Singapore, after all, Temasek and pre-Raffles Singapore is not a state at all, it was simply a village. There is no way Singapore could had became modern without development. Modern Singapore only starts generations after Raffles, when the population of the island is high, and where advancement in science, arts, culture and politics began. I should suggest your article to be titled "The Founding of the British Port in Singapore". Slivester 03:15, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * I don't think that's a fault. Rather, its not because of "primitive lifestyle to modern lifestyle", but rather its port status. Singapore became an international port, and began its new era only at 1819. As a trading post in Temasek, it only traded in the East Asia area. From 1819 onwards, it started trading with the world. There's no need to rename the article. It would be redundant, and there's really no difference, and "British port" sounds redundant as well. Events at 1823 doesn't matter, (acquiring the entire island and such) because the international port, and what would become a world-class one, had already been established. And modern Singapore really started developing immediately; within a year of its founding the population had skyrocketed, if you compare it on a relative scale. Singapore at 1819 was not modern, but modern Singapore was founded at 1819. rather than say, 1403, because the port of 1403 had been destroyed. There was no destruction of the city (excluding air raid damage, which was just that - an air raid, not elimination of the city, and no Dresden firebombing anyway), hence the title I feel is very appropriate. It can't be "founded" at 1965, or 1948, and such, because "modern Singapore" began its roots at earliest 1819. It can't go further than that, because the previous ports had been destroyed and left buried in the dirt and would not be the actual city that would hold 5 million people, just like the modern United States was considered founded at 1776 (as opposed to the Native American nations that had lived there before), despite the fact that it only consisted of 13 states and they still used ramrods to load their muskets and flintlocks to fire them, and hadn't abolished slavery and women couldn't vote and the critical amendments to the constitution had yet to pass.. -- Natalinasmpf 09:28, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I am trying to note that Singapore is founded in 1819, but founding of modern Singapore begins only after 1823, even if its rooted in 1819, it makes no sense to state something that do not exist. The founding of Singapore takes place in 1819, when Raffles negotitates to establish a British port; the founding of modern Singapore begins in 1823 when the British at last has absolute authority over the island.

1819 - 1823 is the foundation years of Singapore, where there are no advancement and whatsoever, simply the construction of a British port and economic activity began. The British had absolutely no authority to construct any other infrastructure in the island at all, until 1823. If there is no construction and advancement, why is it then considered the founding of modern Singapore? However, it seemed pointless anyway to sort this out. I am quite particular with this issue from the many books that note this trend, and the thesis that such that should never been considered the modern Singapore. For the general public, it makes no difference, its simply a misunderstanding for most at start. Its two different point of view, and none was proven prominent, although the British may consider 1819 as the founding of modern Singapore, after all they are the one who funded the events since 1819. But to be precise, that is however, not the case. Slivester 10:31, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Even if it was only the port that was founded at that time, it IS still the founding date for modern Singapore. Singapore, in itself, was founded in the 2nd century AD. Modern Singapore on the other hand, with the word modern to distinguish it from the ancient cities, was founded in 1819. It later was 'legitimised in 1823 under several treaties, upon which then it even went on a period of greater proliferation. But the founding of modern Singapore is still 1819. The only point of the word "modern", is to distinguish it from Temasek. -- Natalinasmpf 18:19, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

You have based your view on the context of many British and Singaporean text, which is acceptable in your sense, however not on mine. You must understand that even if it seemed 1819 is a year that lead to a series of events, that is simply the founding stone of the Singapore in practical sense. However, for most people, it seemed to make no difference to them anyway, a simply refusal to take that into account. From the 3rd century AD to the 19th century, Singapore was simply a outpost of greater empires, or even part of some other larger states. Singapore remained an outpost and fishing village from 1819 - 1823, most changes occur only after 1823, when the British had control over the entire Singapore island. As for "modern", for historians, is not a word to delineate post-Raffles Singapore from Temasek. Slivester 01:55, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Well ancient Singapore was also a thriving city, not merely an outpost...the Silk Route between Arabia and China passed through ancient Singapore. I disagree on how historians do not use "modern" to delineate, after all, "modern" is a relative and subjective term. Its for the sake of being succint and concise, and needs no technical correction. 1823 really isn't a founding, than an expansion, even if it was highly significant, because 1819 signified the British presence and the introduction of the concepts of the Industrial Revolution. Self-government, resistance against colonial rule, the path to independence, the strive for a higher standard of living and to be treated democratically is part of the struggle for self-determination, the road to self-government, not the "founding of modern Singapore". -- Natalinasmpf 02:22, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Whether how much disbelieve you have on this account, this is an established fact. Much debates did occur in the past whether to illustrate the entire events as began in 1819, and very much concluded that it would not be quite inappropriate. (Much accepted and established historical accounts did note that 1819 was the founding of Singapore, excluding the word "modern", often record such as 1823 and after.) As for the thriving city you talked about, there were no established evidence, were merely theories unconventional historians had revised to match the fact that much empires, of which one could have been the Riau Empire; once occupied the region (Malaya). There were though archeological discoveries that proven Singapore was once fortified, however resemble much as a frontline, not a city. Slivester 03:58, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC) I had clarified with a professor I managed to contact, and it seemed for a public encylopedia, such detail may be excluded. One may assume that 1819 was the founding of "modern" Singapore, however, on a tertiary level, that would be unacceptable. As for the events the evolve into the present-day Singapore, they are considered era(s) themselves, however, not much emphasised in Singapore I supposed. Slivester 06:03, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Erm, this sounds suspiciously like my social studies textbook... but I don't have it with me, so I can't confirm it. :) Don't mean the suggest copyvio or anything, just that it sounds... textbookish. You should be a textbook editor, Nata. :) -Hmib 05:47, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Well, we're supposed to use encyclopedic language after all. I wrote it off my head in the most formal way possible (taking stuff from the main History of Singapore article). Maybe its convergent evolution? :D -- Natalinasmpf 07:19, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I would say it's closer to Mimicry (in a bio sense) than convergent evolution, since there is already a template to follow. ;) -Hmib 07:40, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Missing
Sorry to just rattle of a list of things this article is missing, but it clearly has some talented editors working on it, so hopefully you'll be able to come through (I mainly studied European history, so this is out of my area of expertise).
 * What was the population of Singapore immediately before its founding, and a few years after?
 * What was the cultural situation going in? Had the people of Singapore ever seen an Englishman before?  (Yes, the Malay and Chinese were very familiar with the English, but that's a different question)
 * Is the anniversary a national holiday?

Thanks!--M @ r ē ino 14:31, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm way late on this but apparently according to C.E. Wurzburg, the population of Singapore consisted of no more than a few hundred mostly Malay and a fewer number of Chinese. Of course, no census was actually conducted. Singapore was certainly on navigation charts but we really don't have any knowledge from the other side to say as to whether the inhabitants of the island at the time knew of the existence of the English, but Johor itself have been in contact with the Portuguese and the Dutch (and even allied with the Dutch at one point) for hundreds of years, so the higher-levels of government certainly knows the difference of the western nations, at least. As for the national holiday question, I can't answer that, not being Singaporean ;) but I also really have no idea what they teach in Singapore's history classes about themselves. Karajanis (talk) 10:19, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Founding of modern Singapore. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070927183512/http://app.supremecourt.gov.sg/default.aspx?pgID=39l to http://app.supremecourt.gov.sg/default.aspx?pgID=39l
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060903091054/http://www.knowledgenet.com.sg/singapore/shf/e_journal/articles/EJV1ART002.htm to http://www.knowledgenet.com.sg/singapore/shf/e_journal/articles/EJV1ART002.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 14:18, 3 January 2017 (UTC)