|Malacca is a glorified kampung fiction|
|Written by John Doe|
|Monday, 24 January 2011 13:49|
Students in Malaysia are forced to study Malaccan history. They are told that Parameswara is the first Sultan of ‘Malaya’. They are also told that Malacca was a great empire. However, there is no evidence of Malacca today. In fact, there is only and plenty of evidence of the Dutch, the Portuguese, and Bukit Cina.
I previously presented empirical evidence of the Chinese arriving in ‘Malaysia’ since the 5th century. Some argued that the evidence only pertained to East Malaysia [Borneo].Well, today we shall look at the peninsula. Let us examine why Malacca is touted as a tourist site. Malacca was supposedly founded in 1403, and 1403 is often earmarked as the Adam and Eve of Malaysia. Just like I showed how Brunei already had 900 years of kings and sultans before the ‘first Sultan’ of Brunei, let us look at one of the Sultans who was on the throne before Paramesawara. His name is Malik ul Salih.
Few people have even heard of Beruas. Even Malaysians who live in Beruas do not know the significance of the land which they stay. Paramesawara is supposedly the first Muslim king of Malaya. If he truly was, then there should be no pre-first Muslim ‘king of Malaya’, right? The name to remember is Malik ul Salih. He is Acehnese. He dreamt of the Prophet Muhammad, and decided to convert to Islam. He then moved to Beruas.
Here is another pendatang from Sumatera, who did pretty much the same thing as Parameswara, although Malik ul Salih did not murder any Temasik king, unlike his fellow pendatang from Palembang Parameswara. He also set up a Sultanate in Beruas, but he is completely and conveniently forgotten.
The year that Malik ul Salih died in Beruas was 1267. Here is a confirmed Muslim pendatang Sultan from Sumatera who died 136 years before Parameswara stamped his own Malayan visa.
Is the omission of Beruas from mainline history because there is nothing to show for this Beruas kingdom? That’s a very lame excuse, because there is similarly nothing from the Malaccan Sultanate to show for either.
Yet there are four Acehnese royal graves in Beruas (photo). They are close to the school, and not far from the Beruas Museum. So it appears that evidence of these Muslim Sultans is swept aside. Why?
What if the Perak line was from the Beruas line, and not from the Malaccan line? Who’s to know?
Surprisingly, this is also what you will see. Hidden behind a small fence is this – tagged as Batu Aceh.
And for some strange reason, the government of Indonesia refuses to recognise or acknowledge the existence of the Samudera-Pasai kingdom. Here’s a picture of Sultan Malikus Salih’s gravestone. What is the conspiracy? Why are some royal bloodlines systematically erased from history? Were these Sultans Shi’ite Muslims and could this be the reason their histories are erased?
What was the unwritten pact between Malaya and Indonesia which denies the Samudera- Pasai kingdom its very existence? Pick up a copy of the history atlas of Indonesia, and you will see that Pasai does not exist. I find this so extremely strange as there is ‘Hikayat Raja-Raja Pasai’.
I find Malaysia’s choice of showcasing Ketuanan Belanda and Ketuanan Portugis, Ketuanan Bukit Cina and Ketuanan Perigi Hang Li Poh simply fascinating. Where is the Ketuanan Parameswara? Why is there no evidence of Ketuanan any Sultan of Malacca? How can Malaysians be taught supposed history for which no evidence exists?
Are Malaysians that stupid to believe that Malacca was this fantastically great empire which had its EVERY single historical and archaeological trace removed? What did the Portuguese do when they came to Malacca? Vacuum the place of trace evidence?
Let me offer you the most plausible reason to the choice of Malacca as the centerpiece of Ketuanan Melayu history; and I’ll do this by taking you to Thailand for an analogy.
The Thais insist that Sukhothai is the first Thai kingdom. They will tell you that it is clearly 700-plus years old. And right next door is the kingdom of Lanna, which is of the same time-frame, i.e. also from the 13th century. Yet, the present day Thais do not select Lanna as the original Thai kingdom. They also do not pick Lamphun, Lamphang, Lan Xiang, or Chen La. And prior to those, the Chiang Saen and Heokam kingdoms. And I would ask you why?
Why not pick any of those older kingdoms? The only reason the Thais to choose Sukhothai is exactly the same reason as the one selected by Brunei. Despite tangible empirical evidence for much earlier kingdoms and Sultanates, they chose the ones they did, because, and ONLY because, the present Kings are from that lineage. Nothing more and nothing less.
Brunei also has its pre-‘Adamic’ line of Sultans or kings. And so did Thailand and its history.
However, in the case of Malaysia, this brings additional problems. Some Sultans migrated to Malaya from Pattani, and some are Bugis from Sulawesi. Raja Lumu (Sultan Sallehuddin Shah ibni Almarhum Daeng Chelak; 1705-1778) was the first Sultan of Selangor. He was the son of Daeng Chelak. He took on the title of Sultan Sallehuddin of Selangor in 1742. Look at the year again very, very, very carefully.
Raja Lumu was here a mere 35 years before the British arrived. Only 35 years! That is not very long indeed. This also means that the first Sultan of Selangor came 78 years after the Dutch arrived!!! If the Sultan of Selangor was a Bumiputera, then surely the Dutch should be Bumiputera as well. Surely the Dutch and Portuguese descendents should be granted Bumiputera status and allowed to buy houses and Amanah Saham Nasional at discounted prices.
Well actually, the Portuguese in Malacca are in fact Bumiputera, so let’s see who else arrived before the Portuguese? The Babas and Nyonyas! Strangely, the Babas and Nyonyas are NOT Bumiputera. This is advertently stranger than strange. How can the Chinese who arrived earlier than the historical Sultan of Selangor by 339 years not be Bumiputera?
The Babas and the Nyonyas have been outright cheated.
I know a Kerala boy who became Prime Minister. Well, I’ll only clue you in on the year 1963 when it was decided that arriving to Malaya early does not necessarily qualify one to be a Bumiputera. The first and original inhabitants of Malaya since 60,000 years ago also got stripped of any putative Bumiputera status. The Orang Asli are on paper not Bumiputera. This is shameful.
I’m so glad that History is now a compulsory SPM subject, because I, John Doe, will do everything possible to make sure that all Malaysians are educated on real history. Not the retarded version which Umno teaches in schools but the one which actually happened, and is well recorded by respectable sources and unbiased resources from the world over.
This is my pledge to Malaysians.
Buddhist Beruas-artefacts found near Ipoh and Jalong respectively.
The Batu Bersurat Terengganu is at least 300 years older than Malacca. Civilization in Kedah is much older and Lembah Bujang kingdom will attest to this. Unfortunately, it was a Hindu Kingdom, and therefore, sidelined.
So back to Malacca for now. Why is Malacca important? Or rather, is Malacca even important? Or is it only important as a tourist site? What about Buddhist Kota Gelanggi? What happened to Muslim Beruas? And what about Hindu Lembah Bujang?
And Tioman. What happened in Tioman? It was used as a stopover by the Chinese even before the Prophet Muhammad was born. Why shut this information out? I’m still curious to learn the location of the Chi-Tu Kingdom, which was a Hindu-Buddhist kingdom somewhere in Kelantan. Or the female ‘Sultans’ of Kelantan, probably a legacy from their previous Cham matrilineal days. (The Kelantanese migrated from Vietnam, for those who do not know) while the Kelantanese royalty are intertwined with the Thai-Pattani line.
And whatever happened to ‘New China’ as called by the Kadazans for ‘CheenaBalu’? The tallest mountain in Southeast Asia is earmarked as ‘New China’. This happened 300 years before the first ‘Tanah Melayu’ appeared anywhere on record.
Where do the records of Malacca lie? They are all in the Portuguese records. And why? Because the Portuguese made Malacca great. It was a simple fishing village before that.
Let me illustrate this a little further. Anyone who has been to Lake Toba in Sumatera will readily tell you that every 800 metres or so lies a tomb of a great King. They are not of the same royal Line. Everybody wanted to be king. In fact, if you are ready to believe that a kingdom can consist of less than 100 people, then you will worship this ‘king’. But back in those days, all kings were Gods. And all women wanted to mate with the God-Kings and produce godlets (a word like piglets).
Being the king’s mate meant that the women had slightly better food, and a nice house to stay in. Perpetuate the lie long enough, and the entire descendants would continue worshipping these God-Kings.
A typical and traditional Batak Home.‘Sejarah Melayu’ was originally titled ‘Asal-Usul Raja-Raja’. It was written in 1623. This was 200 years after Parameswara ‘swam’ across bay to reach Malacca. How could anyone have known what it was like 200 years ago in those days of 1623? Two hundred years between 1623 and 1403 equates to at least six generations. You have problems remembering what you ate six days ago, let alone 200 years.
What the writer of ‘Asal-Usul Raja-Raja’ tried to do was justify the royal lineage and concocted that the Malacca kings were descendants of Alexander the Great and a West Indian princess.
Assuming the writer is correct, Alexander was a Greek. And if a Greek and an Indian had gotten married, their offspring would look somewhat Middle-Eastern. The writer obviously did not have the benefit of using DNA to prove or disprove his own claim because he made his assertion in 1623. However, today, we know that Austronesians are a blend of Mongoloids and Dravidoids. In short, Malays are basically Chindians. None look like Shah Rukh Khan.
So in conclusion, Malacca had to be glorified while its Babas and the Nyonyas had to be buggered. In short, Malacca is not the oldest: It is not the first Sultanate, not the first local civilization of Muslims, and there’s certainly no trace evidence of the Ketuanan Malacca today other than one physical coinage (see my previous article).
The Hang Tuah, Hang Kesturi, Hang Lekir, Hang Lekiu and Hang Jebat graves could be any Hindu person’s grave. Yet no other Muslim graves of note, and certainly no Sultan’s grave were ever found to substantiate the Malacca story of glory. If not, then I pose my parting question to you again: What exactly is Malacca?
Glorified kampung fiction?