Should Sir Stamford Raffles deserve to be called founder of Singapore?

In my opinion, I feel that Raffles does not deserve to be called founder and builder of Singapore. I have a couple of answers to support this. Firstly, the word "founder" means to establish something or formulate the basis of something. Raffles was not the establisher of Singapore, Sang Nila Utama was. As for the builder of Singapore, Raffles does have a bit of credit, however, some credit is needed to be given to the …

…from 1819 to 1923, worked alongside the Malay rulers to secure the survival and growth of Singapore while Raffles supervised him from Bencoolen. When the Anglo-Malay treaty was signed in August 1924 to declare Singapore as a crown colony, Sir Stamford Raffles did not sign it, instead, Dr John Crawfurd, the second Resident of Singapore, signed the treaty. These few points can already state why Raffles does not deserve to be called the founder and builder of Singapore.