Archive for January 2012

Only ‘HISTORY MADE IN CHINA’ is Credible To Prof. Khoo Kay Kim

January 30, 2012

I read with interest the interview given by Prof. Khoo Kay Kim, as published by The New Sunday Times yesterday.

A major point raised by him was that the Sejarah Melayu was not a historical account, as it was written years after the fall of the Malay Sultanate of Malacca, during which period, the ‘mythical hero’ Hang Tuah was ‘alleged to have served’ at least three Malay sultans as Laksamana, or Admiral of the Sea.

In comparison, according to Prof KKK, the history of Ming Dynasty in China was TRULY historical account, as it was written by Ming historians during the rule of the Ming Emperors itself.

If we were to use Prof. KKK arguments, what about the ‘history’ of GREAT RELIGIONS of the world, like Hinduism, Buddhism, Judaism, Christianity and Islam? Apart from the Ten Commandments, other parts of Old Testament were compiled hundreds of years after Moses. The Gospel of Jesus Christ were also written and compiled hundreds of years after what the Christians believed to be the the cruxifiction of Jesus Christ. And according to Muslim scholars, apart from the Quran itself, the life history of Muhammad, the Messenger of Allah, and his caliphs, or successors, were written and compiled over 100 years after the death of the Messenger of Allah.

By Prof. KKK ‘high standards’, is he also claiming that GREAT HUMANS like Buddha, Moses, Jesus and Muhammad were mythical figures too, in the same way he regarded Hang Tuah?

Even the Malays would agree that certain capabilities of Hang Tuah may have been subject of OVER-GLORIFICATIONS, in the same way Paul and the Roman over-glorified Jesus Christ to be SON OF GOD. Certain superlatives being attached to certain historical figures do not take a way the fact that those figures were historical figures, a few even changed the course of history.

Prof. KKK should re-assess his NARROW-MINDED views of history and historical accounts. Otherwise he would find himself REJECTING the whole history of the MALAY CIVILISATION, despite historical accounts of the Malay Kingdom of Langkasuka (2nd-5th AD), the Malay Kingdom of Sriwijaya(5th-12th AD), the Malay Kingdom of Majapahit(12th-14th AD) and the Malay Kingdom of Malacca(14th-16th AD). Is Prof.KKK also claiming the the whole HISTORY OF MALAY CIVILISATION is a myth?

I believe, Prof. KKK should not pretend that he knew so much about history, to question the HISTORY OF MALAY CIVILISATION, especially when he is still obsessed with MADE IN CHINA products, including history. He should leave it to MALAY HISTORIANS to interpret the history of the Malays, and the MALAY ARCHIPELAGO.





Hang Tuah, a Malay ICON or Chinese IDIOT?

January 23, 2012

What a great day today, the Chinese New Year, the year of the dragon. To all Malaysian Chinese, and the Chinese world over, I wish all of you a very HAPPY CHINESE NEW YEAR.

It has been a  few years since I came accross some postings, must be by Chinese bloggers, ‘touting’  TALES that the Malay WARRIOR ICON, Hang Tuah, and his four almost equally famous comrades-in-arm, Hang Jebat, Hang Kasturi, Hang Lekir and Lekiu, were Chinese.

At first I thought the TALES were not worth a second look. However, I kept on coming across such TALES being repeated by other bloggers, giving me the impression that such TALES may have been ‘swallowed’ as TRUTH by the younger Chinese generation. The paradox is, the Malaysian Chinese UM Professor of History, Prof. Khoo Kay Kim, through his recent statement, is of the belief that Hang Tuah was a mythical figure.

I’m not taking on Prof. Khoo Kay Kim here. On this ouspicious Chinese New Year day, its more relaxing to handle the proponents of the belief that Hang Tuah and his ‘comrade-in-arms’ were Chinese. Their TALES are based on the following: 1. The name of Ming Emperor’s princess ‘presented’ to the Sultan Iskandar Shah of Malacca was Hang Li Po.  2. Names of Hang Tuah, Hang Jebat and others had THREE consonents, typical of Chinese names. Hence their re-naming of Hang Tuah as ‘Hang Too Ah’ and Hang Jebat as ‘Hang Jee Fatt’.  3. According to them, initial name of ‘Hang’ was never used in Malay names. 4. To ‘add spice to the salt’, according to them, certain DNA tests were carried out in ‘America’ of remnants of ‘Hang Too Ah’ dug out from his grave in Malacca proved that he was Chinese.

Its interesting to note that the proponents of the TALES believe that  ‘Hang Too Ah’ and his comrades were among the best Chinese Warriors, assigned by the Ming Emperor to safeguard the Princess Hang Li Po in distant land of Malacca. We can not help to believe that, had they been among the best Chinese warriors, they must have been very skillful Kung Fu fighters, most likely using the long Chinese swords as their main weapon for self-defense. In this aspect, the proponents of the TALES need to explain WHY ‘Hang Too Ah’ decided to put aside his Chinese sword in favour of the Malay KERIS, besides being invincibly-skillful in the Malay SILAT rather than the Chinese Kung Fu. Had he found out that SILAT, the Malay art of self-defense, is much superior than the Chinese Kung Fu?

However, by far the most mind-boggling question the proponents of the TALES must tell us is the willingness of the Chinese ‘Hang Too Ah’ to kill his fellow Chinese comrade-in-arm ‘Hang Jee Fatt’  for the sake of a Malay Sultan. Such ‘tragedy’ seemed to contradict their earlier claims that ‘Hang Too Ah’ and his comrade-in-arms were sent by the Chinese Ming Emperor to be the body-guards of the Princes Hang Li Po. Had ‘Hang Too Ah’ and comrade-in-arms changed their allegiance from the Ming Emperor to the Malay Sultan of Malacca?

And that has not taken into consideration  a very important historical ‘trade mark’ attached to ‘Hang Too Ah’…to utter a LEGENDARY STATEMENT  towards the end of his life, the statement that ‘ TAKKAN MELAYU HILANG DI DUNIA’, which have injected into the Malay bloods, arteries and veins,  the spirit of  SELF-RESPECT, BRAVERY and WILLINGNESS TO FIGHT in defense of their RIGHTS AND HONOUR.

Simply, there is no credible basis whatsoever for the proponents of the TALES to believe that the Malay LEGENDARY WARRIOR Hang Tuah was Chinese. In fact, there were more basis to believe that the Chinese Ming Emperor was Muslim. There is no dispute that Admiral Cheng Ho was a Muslim. The question is, how could a Chinese Ming Emperor trust a Muslim Admiral so much, if he himself was not a muslim. Whilst, there were articles written by certain historians, revealing  that there were Ming Dynasty coins with the Arabic inscription ‘La ilaha illa Allah’, meaning ‘There is no god but Allah’, the phrase that a non-Muslim would have to utter to convert to Islam.

The proponents of the TALES also have not studied enough about  Malay names, by making conclusion that Malay names do not normally carry  a family name which is passed down from the father to the son. Obviously they overlooked the fact that  there are many Malay names with the INITIALS being passed down from father to son. For example, we have names beginning with NIK, like in the name NIK Aziz, the Menteri Besar of Kelantan. His son’s name is NIK Abduh, and his daughter’s name NIK Amalina. Besides names beginning with NIK, there are hundreds of other INITIAL names including Daeng, Wan, Yeop, Sheikh, Syed, Dang, Dayang, Awang, Tengku, Teuku, Pangiran and many many others which are carried down from father to son/daughter, quite similar to the Chinese names.

HANG is one of such Malay names. In Sejarah Melayu, there was a character with the name of HANG Nadim, who was persecuted by the rulers of Tumasek(old name of Singapura). This episod of history happened well before the founding of Malacca by Parameswara, or Sultan Iskandar Shah, well before the giving away of Hang Li Po’s hand to the Malacca sultan. It could be just a co-incidence that the INITIAL sounds like a Chinese surname, just like the term TAN in the title TAN SERI, whilst TUAH is a Malay word, meaning ‘luck’. Hence the term ‘cabutan nombor berTUAH’.

Most Malays would wonder, what’s the real motive behind attempts by the Malaysian Chinese to ‘re-incarnate’ the ICONIC Malay warrior Hang Tuah as Chinese. Are they trying to tell the world that anything ICONIC and GREAT must necessarily be related to the Chinese?

My advice to proponents of ‘Chinese Hang Tuah’ is, do not try to hijack MALAY HEROES like Hang Tuah to be CHINESE, plus deregatory adjectives, like  IDIOTS. Why I said that? For a Malay/Muslim Hang Tuah, to be absolutely loyal to a king is a RELIGIOUS DUTY, based on a ‘commandment’ in the Quran, meaning ‘Obey Allah, and obey the Messengger of Allah, and THOSE IN POWER from among you’. For a Malay/Muslim Hang Tuah, to kill Hang Jebat for the sake of Sultan Melayu was an HONOURABLE ACT, and infact a RELIGIOUS DUTY.

But, for Chinese ‘Hang Too Ah’ to kill his fellow Chinese ‘Hang Jee Fatt’  for the sake of the Malay Sultan of Malacca, he would have inflicted DISGRACE to the Chinese Ming Emperor, and would have earned him the ‘title’ CHINESE IDIOT.

Hang Tuah Being Challenged Again

January 22, 2012

Its VERY UNFORTUNATE that certain non-Malay professor in history, has gone BEYOND HIS EXPERTISE, by claiming that Hang Tuah was a MYTH.

We can compare such a futile attempt to a person who does not believe in Allah, the God Almighty, yet asking the billions of believers in Allah, the God Almighty, to prove the existence of the One God.

Before we answer Prof(?) Khoo Kay Kim, let him prove to us first that the GREAT WALL of China was built by the Chinese…

%d bloggers like this: