Remove The Statue Of Raffles
-
Hello....has anyone ever thought of this......
Why is there a statue of Raffles? Standing and folding his arms so smugly?
And....why is he positioned prominently as if to convey 'yeah...look at this SG...this is my achievement'
And why is it when u go to Changi Airport and u read a brochure, sometimes u read 'Singapore was founded/ established by Sir Stamford Raffles...'
I say, remove all this nonsense.
This is a very bad colonial legacy.
Remove his statue and remove any mention of him being a founder/ establisher. Especially the wording 'Founder of Modern Singapore' . This is a very bad colonial mindset and very very British-centric. The founder of modern Singapore is none other than a local man named Lee Kuan Yew, not some Sir Stamford Raffles from British East India Company.
For the British, from their viewpoint of history, of course they will see Sir Raffles as the founder of Singapore. But why is Singapore following this British-centric viewpoint?
He was the first British to rule there and the first British to establish British East India Company operating there. The British view him as the founder of Singapore, naturally. It is through Raffles that Singapore existed in their map of British Empire. But wait, this is their viewpoint of history, isnt it?????
Don't forget Singapore already existed and was already populated before he bought the land for British East India Company. Then he developed it further, and so, this is where people start to say 'founder of singapore' .
What a nonsense.
What he did was only partial in Singapore's overall history.
Don't forget the Singapore that Raffles ruled through British East India Company was only for a period of time, and only partial in Singapore's overall history. Don't forget the Singapore that he ruled was one where colonialism exist, where British people are more superior and Chinese, Malays, Indians are all subjects of the British Empire.
Why is he called 'Founder of Singapore' ? Especially 'Founder of Modern Singapore' ?
He should be called 'Ruler of Colonial Singapore in 19th century'
Singapore is not 'found' or 'established' by any one person. And, Modern Singapore is not a colonial Singapore in 19th century where colonialism still exist and Chinese Malays Indians are all still British subjects.
I say, the true so-called founder of Modern Singapore is a man named Lee Kuan Yew. His statue should have been placed where Raffles is standing so smugly now.
This is a very bad colonial legacy.
Look at the photos.
-
LKY may not even have been born if Raffles hadn't landed in Singapore.
-
raffles statue
bad fengshui...
position statues of Fu Luk Shou better~!
-
do us a favour and remove yourselfOriginally posted by Li Ka Shing:Hello....has anyone ever thought of this......
Why is there a statue of Raffles? Standing and folding his arms so smugly?
And....why is he positioned prominently as if to convey 'yeah...look at this SG...this is my achievement'
And why is it when u go to Changi Airport and u read a brochure, sometimes u read 'Singapore was founded/ established by Sir Stamford Raffles...'
I say, remove all this nonsense.
This is a very bad colonial legacy.
Remove his statue and remove any mention of him being a founder/ establisher. Especially the wording 'Founder of Modern Singapore' . This is a very bad colonial mindset and very very British-centric. The founder of modern Singapore is none other than a local man named Lee Kuan Yew, not some Sir Stamford Raffles from British East India Company.
For the British, from their viewpoint of history, of course they will see Sir Raffles as the founder of Singapore. But why is Singapore following this British-centric viewpoint?
He was the first British to rule there and the first British to establish British East India Company operating there. The British view him as the founder of Singapore, naturally. It is through Raffles that Singapore existed in their map of British Empire. But wait, this is their viewpoint of history, isnt it?????
Don't forget Singapore already existed and was already populated before he bought the land for British East India Company. Then he developed it further, and so, this is where people start to say 'founder of singapore' .
What a nonsense.
What he did was only partial in Singapore's overall history.
Don't forget the Singapore that Raffles ruled through British East India Company was only for a period of time, and only partial in Singapore's overall history. Don't forget the Singapore that he ruled was one where colonialism exist, where British people are more superior and Chinese, Malays, Indians are all subjects of the British Empire.
Why is he called 'Founder of Singapore' ? Especially 'Founder of Modern Singapore' ?
He should be called 'Ruler of Colonial Singapore in 19th century'
Singapore is not 'found' or 'established' by any one person. And, Modern Singapore is not a colonial Singapore in 19th century where colonialism still exist and Chinese Malays Indians are all still British subjects.
I say, the true so-called founder of Modern Singapore is a man named Lee Kuan Yew. His statue should have been placed where Raffles is standing so smugly now.
This is a very bad colonial legacy.
Look at the photos.
-
raffles there nvm wad...... LKY also haven die wad for build a statue of him....i'm sure there will be a better "thing" to show the world our LKY lor
-
Temasek tower?Originally posted by c0ol_blu3z:raffles there nvm wad...... LKY also haven die wad for build a statue of him....i'm sure there will be a better "thing" to show the world our LKY lor
-
Without the Brits..Singapore as a little trading kampong would have been swept into obscurity..let alone have a LKY.
-
but they song fuo, neber song dao xi lehz...Originally posted by LazerLordz:Without the Brits..Singapore as a little trading kampong would have been swept into obscurity..let alone have a LKY.
just left us in the hands of jap.
-
But would they have helped us if singapore was not useful to them at that point of time?Originally posted by LazerLordz:Without the Brits..Singapore as a little trading kampong would have been swept into obscurity..let alone have a LKY. -
rem, their aim is to have singapore as their OWN LAND.Originally posted by seow:But would they have helped us if singapore was not useful to them at that point of time? -
No choice mah. During WW2, Europe kena the worst. Britain also got to defend itself. Japan's alliance with Germany weakened the Great Powers and facilitated the rise of USA in later years.Originally posted by Mr Fugue:but they song fuo, neber song dao xi lehz...
just left us in the hands of jap. -
Britain: "wo ye bu xiang zhe yang"...Originally posted by Mr Fugue:but they song fuo, neber song dao xi lehz...
just left us in the hands of jap. -
I dedicate the 6th track to them:Originally posted by kingofbeholder:Britain: "wo ye bu xiang zhe yang"... 
-
Threadstarter Social Studies got A1?
-
More like Grade Z.Originally posted by ne0matrix:Threadstarter Social Studies got A1? 
-
after that they never help us until we no need to work or worry and can jsut enjoy ourselves alsoOriginally posted by kingofbeholder:Britain: "wo ye bu xiang zhe yang"... -
aiyah, u scared wat
ah lee die liao oso will have statue one lah
=X -
hmmm
if Japan never invade Singapore...
what would Singapore be now? -
i would be a samsui woman!Originally posted by TuTu_Car:hmmm
if Japan never invade Singapore...
what would Singapore be now? -
haha~~
I know WW2 is a terrible thing to happen, but if there is no WW2, wat would Singapore be now? any comments? -
LKY might had became the Chairman of Communist China if Raffles hadn't landed in SingaporeOriginally posted by iveco:LKY may not even have been born if Raffles hadn't landed in Singapore. -
if u remember, got one year the new paper played a april fool joke with the article "Statue of Raffles stolen" as its cover story.
-
we address him as a person who found singapore to have the opportunity to achieve what it had now; not the country or empire and colonial legacy. it's just how u want to interprete it. anyway, dun worry the snr lee will definately get his statue done someday.Originally posted by Li Ka Shing:Hello....has anyone ever thought of this......
Why is there a statue of Raffles? Standing and folding his arms so smugly?
And....why is he positioned prominently as if to convey 'yeah...look at this SG...this is my achievement'
And why is it when u go to Changi Airport and u read a brochure, sometimes u read 'Singapore was founded/ established by Sir Stamford Raffles...'
I say, remove all this nonsense.
This is a very bad colonial legacy.
Remove his statue and remove any mention of him being a founder/ establisher. Especially the wording 'Founder of Modern Singapore' . This is a very bad colonial mindset and very very British-centric. The founder of modern Singapore is none other than a local man named Lee Kuan Yew, not some Sir Stamford Raffles from British East India Company.
For the British, from their viewpoint of history, of course they will see Sir Raffles as the founder of Singapore. But why is Singapore following this British-centric viewpoint?
He was the first British to rule there and the first British to establish British East India Company operating there. The British view him as the founder of Singapore, naturally. It is through Raffles that Singapore existed in their map of British Empire. But wait, this is their viewpoint of history, isnt it?????
Don't forget Singapore already existed and was already populated before he bought the land for British East India Company. Then he developed it further, and so, this is where people start to say 'founder of singapore' .
What a nonsense.
What he did was only partial in Singapore's overall history.
Don't forget the Singapore that Raffles ruled through British East India Company was only for a period of time, and only partial in Singapore's overall history. Don't forget the Singapore that he ruled was one where colonialism exist, where British people are more superior and Chinese, Malays, Indians are all subjects of the British Empire.
Why is he called 'Founder of Singapore' ? Especially 'Founder of Modern Singapore' ?
He should be called 'Ruler of Colonial Singapore in 19th century'
Singapore is not 'found' or 'established' by any one person. And, Modern Singapore is not a colonial Singapore in 19th century where colonialism still exist and Chinese Malays Indians are all still British subjects.
I say, the true so-called founder of Modern Singapore is a man named Lee Kuan Yew. His statue should have been placed where Raffles is standing so smugly now.
This is a very bad colonial legacy.
Look at the photos. -
Then will he be known as Li Xiao Ping ? Then Eng name will be Panda LiOriginally posted by UandMe:LKY might had became the Chairman of Communist China if Raffles hadn't landed in Singapore