The National Library is currently holding an exhibition on William Farquhar to shed some light upon his role as a founding father of Singapore. While the exhibition states to “[provide] an insight into the often-untold contributions of William Farquhar in the development of early Singapore”, it seems to go beyond that. It almost seems as though the Singapore Heritage Society is almost trying to subtly (or not very subtly) portray Farquhar’s contributions to be larger than Raffles in building Singapore.  In fact, I hardly find it implicit.

Most Singaporeans perceive Farquhar to be a secondary figure compared to Raffles. And it is hardly their fault — far less streets or institutions are attributed to Farquhar. Farquhar street is a short and seldom used stretch of road as compared to Raffles Place. Keppel Harbour which was sighted by Farquhar as a “new harbour” could be named after him but isn’t.  Even our history textbooks, such as Understanding Our Past together with the primary school social studies books, which is the only source which the historical knowledge of most Singaporeans is entirely built on, places Raffles in a light which outshines Farquhar.

The exhibition appears to have the intention of changing such a public perception. From the onset, an explicit comparison is drawn between the two — Farquhar spent 58 months in Singapore whereas Raffles was more akin to an absent father who spent 200 odd days in Singapore. This was accentuated by the fact that letters sent to Raffles from Farquhar requesting funding went “often unanswered for months on end”. By extension, much of the policies were decided by Farquhar as a key figure. This can also be seen in how Farquhar had the ability to defy Raffles’ orders which might mean that Raffles is in too distant a position to interfere.

Many of Farquhar’s contributions are not known to the average Singaporean and even the history students. For instance, there was one policy implemented by Farquhar to cope with a rats problem that Singapore faced by paying people for every rat they caught. (The exhibition very vividly mentions some to be the size of cats!) As a result, our very cheapskate and enterprising forefathers invested time and money in inventing all sorts to traps to spend the day catching rats. The rules of ecology tells us that when you remove one pest, the pest below it in the food chain will multiply since it has less predators — leading to a centipede problem. Farquhar then implemented the same policy and the cycle repeated. No mention is made whether the pests which centipedes fed on flourished.

In fact, almost a quarter worth of the exhibition is spent on the conflicts between Raffles and Farquhar. It is apparent that Farquhar is far from being the executioner of Raffles’ bidding. If anything, the two had a strained relationship where Farquhar went against explicit orders. Such orders were depicted to be detrimental to Singapore, such that Farquhar had to disobey them out of pragmatism. In one instance, Farquhar used a portion set aside by Raffles as government land around the Singapore River for merchants to use under pressure from influential traders who would have withdrawn their businesses from Singapore. On another instance, Farquhar allowed taxes from gambling and opium as a source of revenue even though Raffles was against such vices. Both instances of disagreement were out of the tight budget which seems to be due to Raffles’ refusal to increase funding.

Hence, the exhibition can be said to not only show Farquhar’s contributions, but portray them as greater than Raffles, or at least being closer and more involved with Singapore. The organisers intentionally chose to display an article by Farquhar rebutting the widowed wife of Raffles that the merit of founding Singapore goes entirely to Raffles, perhaps to let the words of Farquhar to speak for themselves.

Taken to another level, perhaps Raffles was portrayed as even an impediment to Farquhar’s management as seen by how his name makes multiple appearances under the section detailing the four difficulties Farquhar faced. Furthermore, the various policies implemented by Farquhar mentioned above were opposed by Raffles. The typical audience-member is led to believe that more credit deserves to go to Farquhar.

Above all, the exhibition mentions how Raffles is responsible for dismissing Farquhar both as a governor and resident of Singapore. Building upon how Farquhar has been portrayed as a capable governor who made an immense contribution in his 58 months, the next logical conclusion that can be inferred is that his dismissal is a loss of Singapore. The exhibition goes to the extent of detailing the sadness of the people as he departed by ship.

I think as a good summary of the underlying theme behind this exhibition, this line would suffice: “He [Farquhar] was a practical and pragmatic administrator who manifested what Raffles could only dream about”. Indeed, Raffles has been said to be a “driven visionary, a dreamer and highly ambitious to boot [who] saw imperialism as a sacred vidilising mission and hoped to liberate natives from feudal ways of thought and behaviour.” A phrase which reeks of colonial supremacy and arrogance (which I’m reading about now in Niall Ferguson’s book Empire) that the Singaporean will find hard to accept. In contrast, Farquhar is arguably portrayed to be closer to the people as seen from the fact that he married a local by the name of ‘nonya’.

As an end-thought, we are left to think about two fundamental questions — first and foremost, what defines a founder of a nation? Second and more subtly, is there an underlying purpose behind selecting such a historical figure to represent the founding father of Singapore? Perhaps such is politics, where the boss (or your warrant officer) will claim the credit of the work of the underling.

It is quite interesting that these questions be posed especially with the recent deaths of some great men. And perhaps as we look at history as a whole, why is it that some impactful figures have faded from prominence in what defines “national history”. The next figure I am going to look at will be David Marshall, and by that I mean more than his trials.

How unfortunate it is that at this exhibition all I see are angmoh old couples — maybe because it is to look at the conflict between two other angmoh men.

****

Rahrahrahrahhh-fuhs!