The establishment of Singapore
William Farquhar, a senior East India Company officer who served as the first British Resident of Singapore (1819–1823), published this letter in 1830 in response to Lady Raffles’ posthumous claim that her husband possessed the “sole and exclusive merit” of establishing the settlement. Reprinted in JMBRAS in 2016 to contextualize a companion article on Francis J. Bernard, the text is a pointed rebuttal in which Farquhar asserts that he was the original architect of the Singapore project and that Raffles’ role, while real, was secondary and brief.
Summary
The letter is structured as a point-by-point refutation of the narrative Lady Raffles had promoted in her husband’s biography. Farquhar’s central argument rests on a timeline: he claims to have first recommended a new settlement in the Straits of Malacca to the Supreme Government in 1816, and to have obtained prior permission from the Rajah Mudah (viceroy of Johore) to survey the Carimon Islands for that purpose before surrendering Malacca to the Dutch. When Raffles was subsequently appointed by Lord Hastings to oversee the new settlement, he carried a complimentary letter to Farquhar inviting him to accompany the expedition. The two met at Penang, where they disagreed on the optimal site—Farquhar favoured the Carimons for their position in the direct shipping track, Raffles favoured the old Malay settlement of Johore on the peninsula.
The decisive moment, according to Farquhar, came after the Carimons proved unsatisfactory. It was Farquhar who proposed stopping at Singapore, and it was Farquhar who travelled to Rhio to negotiate with the Viceroy, who—already bound by a treaty with the Dutch—nonetheless indicated he had no objection, citing his earlier grant of permission for the Carimons. Farquhar then returned to Singapore, where he and Raffles jointly signed a treaty with the local chief and hoisted the British flag. Raffles, Farquhar stresses, sailed for Penang the very next day. The letter thus frames the founding as a collaborative act in which Farquhar supplied the strategic initiative, the diplomatic groundwork, and the on-the-ground negotiation, while Raffles provided the official commission and the ceremonial signature.
Farquhar extends his rebuttal to two further claims. First, he denies that Raffles did anything to benefit the Dutch inhabitants of Malacca during his stay there, arguing that it was Farquhar, as commanding officer, who forwarded their petition to Government and recommended it favourably. Second, he notes that Raffles’ intelligence report on Java—prepared for Lord Minto to plan the 1811 invasion—was in fact Farquhar’s own work, signed by Farquhar and transmitted through Raffles. The letter closes with Farquhar’s claim that Singapore grew more rapidly in population and commercial importance under his residency than any other new establishment, and that the inhabitants expressed genuine happiness at his rule and regret at his departure in late 1823.
Key Findings
- Farquhar claims to have first recommended a new Straits settlement to the Supreme Government in 1816, three years before Raffles’ appointment (p. 141).
- The Rajah Mudah of Johore had already signed a treaty with the Dutch restricting European access to Johore territory, but told Farquhar he had “no kind of objection” to Singapore on the grounds that he had previously granted Farquhar permission for the Carimon Islands (p. 142).
- Raffles sailed for Penang the very next day after the treaty was signed and the British flag hoisted at Singapore (p. 142).
- Farquhar’s letters of 6 and 7 February 1806 (reproduced in full) document his role in forwarding the Dutch inhabitants’ petition to request continued residence at Malacca, directly contradicting Lady Raffles’ attribution of that favour to Raffles (p. 142).
- The destruction of Malacca’s fortifications was carried out in 1807 under peremptory Government orders; Farquhar claims personal responsibility for saving the church, government house, and principal public buildings without prior Government sanction (p. 143).
- Farquhar states that upon his departure from Singapore in late 1823, the inhabitants presented addresses and testimonials expressing happiness under his rule (p. 143).
Conclusion
Farquhar’s letter is a deliberate act of historical self-assertion: he seeks to dismantle the myth of Raffles as sole founder by demonstrating that the strategic conception, the diplomatic negotiation with Johore, and the practical on-the-ground decision to select Singapore all originated with him. The editor’s appended note sharpens the irony by citing Raffles’ own 1819 letter, in which he describes Singapore as “a child of my own” and makes no mention of Farquhar—confirming that the two men’s accounts of the same founding event were irreconcilable from the outset.
Context
- Farquhar wrote as a serving Colonel of the East India Company’s service and former Resident of Singapore; his letter is a contemporary administrative self-defence, not a retrospective scholarly assessment, and his claims should be read with that institutional self-interest in mind.
- The JMBRAS editor’s note (p. 141) situates the reprint within a broader historiographical conversation about the Raffles–Farquhar–Bernard triangle of tensions in early Singapore governance.