|
|
Posted by nkkhoo on 7th October, 2012
- (Comments are closed)
The so-called evidence is a written document from an unknown and unreliable author according to Bodohland’s Malay historians. Actually there are no concrete proofs or artifacts uncovered and linked to existence of Parameswara. Also no Melaka palace daily journals available to say Melaka Sultanate was a real history.
If the founding date for Melaka is 1262, then the history of China Ming Dynasty and Portuguese are all wrong.
China Ming dynasty history is the most proper documented archive in the world unlike Melaka history written by unknown authors a hundred years later.
Chinese archives hold key to Malacca’s founding
October 11, 2012
FMT LETTER: From NK Khoo, via e-mail
The Malacca sultanate’s existence is proven only through cross reference with other historical archives from China, Siam, Portuguese, etc. because all archives from the Malacca palace were believed to have been destroyed during the wartime.
Historians are fully aware that China’s Ming dynasty history is the most well documented archives in the world, unlike Malacca’s history which was written a hundred years later.
Ming palace records are still existence and can be accessed by researchers to verify when Parameswara visited Nanjing.
Parameswara’s visit to China in 1405 was well documented in the Ming palace official journals with the details such as of what food served to him and his delegation on a particular day.
If the founding date for Malacca is 1262, then the history of the Ming Dynasty and Siam are all proven wrong or at least the Ming Dynasty history has to be brought forward 150 years to synchronise with the new Malacca history as claimed by Malacca government. This is a very unlikely event!
Most world renowned historians will not accept a history announced by local government without proper research works done on the subject. History still has to substantiated with evidences like palace official documents, artifacts, cross reference archives, etc.
http://www.freemalaysiatoday.com/category/opinion/2012/10/11/chinese-archives-hold-key-to-malaccas-founding/
Which year was Malacca founded — 1400 or 1262?
I READ with dismay that Pos Malaysia is launching a series of stamps to “mark the 750th anniversary of the founding of Melaka”.
This “recognises” or “accepts” that the historical date of the founding of Melaka is changed from 1400 to 1262.
The Malacca Chief Minister made such an announcement this year.
Historical dates are important markers and have always been determined by historians and academia of international and local standing, aptly so as this falls within their field of research.
In the absence of such an announcement of the change in the year of the founding of Malacca by the appropriate body, can this be treated as being “official” by politicians and now Pos Malaysia?
I would appreciate if there can be some clarification on this.
MELAKA FISHERMAN
Malacca
Posted by nkkhoo on 7th September, 2012
- (Comments are closed)
Judging from UMNO racial record in writing Malaysia history, I believe the new history syllabus will be another controversy.
I quote a few new historical facts as believed by UMNO.
- Bersih is not Bersih.
- UMNO alone was fighting independence from the British.
- MPAJA is anti-Malay military organization.
- Pre-independence Malay left-wing politicians are pro-communist.
- Hang Tuah is a Malay hero.
- Hang Li Po is a Ming princess.
- Melaka sultanate existed for 700 year. [Current version is 600 year]
- Parameswara is a Muslim.
- 1 million old skeleton found in Lenggong is Malay ancestor.
- Baba Nyoyna is old pendatang.
- Chinese and Indian are new pendatang.
New history syllabus soon
By R. SITTAMPARAM
NATIONAL PRIDE: Views of experts incorporated to build up patriotic spirit, says DPM
 Deputy Prime Minister Tan Sri Muhyiddin Yassin and Malaysian Historical Society executive committee chairman Tan Sri Omar Mohd Hashim at the MHS History Gallery yesterday. Bernama pic KUALA LUMPURA: NEW history syllabus for secondary schools is taking shape with recommendations from a special committee headed by Malaysian Historical Society (PSM) executive committee chairman Tan Sri Omar Mohd Hashim.Deputy Prime Minister Tan Sri Muhyiddin Yassin said special attention would be given to the contents of the history syllabus in a bid to mould citizens with a high patriotic spirit.
Continue reading >> New history or distorted history syllabus?
Posted by nkkhoo on 21st January, 2012
- (Comments are closed)
Hang Tuah and his companions are Ming imperial eunuchs cum body guards with excellent martial art skills who accomplished Hang Li Poh to Melaka.
There are local scholars saying the name ‘Hang’ exists in Padang Lawas Sumatra, Indonesia.
But why Hang Li Poh is believed was a princess from the Ming emperor, not a princess from Sumatra.
Hang Li Poh is not a real Ming princess should not come as a big surprise. In Chinese history, sometimes the emperor adopted a palace waitress or concubine as her foster princess before she was sent off to a foreign land for diplomacy marriage with a king or an emperor.
Chinese dominant race is Han, it could written as Hang in ancient Malay language. Hang Ling Poh and her royal body guards like Hang Tuah, Hang Jebat, etc. were given a common surname or title “Hang” for representing Han emperor.
This also explain Hang Tuah, Hang Jebat, Hang Kasturi, Hang Lekir and Hang Lekiu were not siblings, but merely close friends.
Why no descendants found for Hang Tuah and his comrades in Melaka? Because they were eunuchs from the Ming imperial palace.
Only DNA or carbon tests on Hang Tuah, Hang Jebat, etc. remains and compare with the population with Hang name in Sumatra, local Malay and Mainland Nanjing Chinese can approve or disapprove my hypothesis on Hang Tuah is a Chinese.
UMNO will use religion sensitivity to prevent DNA tests because my hypothesis is more rational than the myths in our history text book.
It’s a huge blow to Malay supremacy ego if Hang Tuah and his companions are proven as Han Chinese.
Posted by nkkhoo on 18th January, 2012
- (Comments are closed)
Gapena chairman Professor Abdul Latiff Bakar, meanwhile, disagreed over the notion that Hang Tuah did not exist
“It does not mean that Hang Tuah did not exist.”
“He existed in the Malay historical source, not the Arab or Chinese historical source,” Latiff said, adding that Hang Tuah’s village existed in Duyung.
I am not a historian, but I know a professional and objective evidence on a historical personality and dynasty is based on
- Related artifacts and tomb for the person or king.
- Cross reference on written records from several sources. By quoting a written record or source only is never a reliable historical record.
“Sejarah Melayu” was not written during the Melaka Sultanare period is another question mark on its accuracy unlike Chinese imperial records. The Ming dynasty has more than 10 million pages of royal family journal which are still well preserved in the museum.
For instance, China documented history is 5000 year, but its verified history is only tracked back to 3500 year ago after the discovery of Yin dynasty’s artifacts and a tomb of Yin queen.
Melaka Sultanate verified history is ZERO after it lost all imperial records in the war with Portuguese. The sultans and its court official tombs have to be digged out to see any artifacts buried with them or not to prove the existence of Melaka sultanate.
Melaka sultanate history is based on a single Malay historical source, Malay Annals. This is a myth like those China history earlier than 3500 year.
To claim Hang Tuah’s village is in Duyung is another myth. An undated ancient well is used as proof for Hang Tuah’s birth place is another Bolehland joke.
No kiddling, my grandma’s old house used to have a well constructed with similar type of red stones used in the Hang Tuah’s well.
Why not a single Hang Tuah’s offspring found in Duyung Melaka? This is the hard evidence we need to prove Hang Tuah is a real Malay warrior existed in Malaysia history.
Posted by nkkhoo on 16th January, 2012
- (Comments are closed)
I have doubt the existence of Princess Hang Li Poh since I was in primary school.
The reason is simple, the princess of Ming emperor should be with surname, Chu or Choo. Hang Li Poh could be a royal title to a princess or any concubine in the palace. Unfortunately, no such Ming empirical record mentions any princess or concubine with the name or royal title, Hang Li Poh.
“Hikayat Hang Tuah” was written after two or three hundred years later is fulled with stories, folktales and legends. No historians except Bolehland historians take such accounts as true and authentic historical facts.
Another funny thing is there are royal families claim they are Melaka sultan descendants, but no one come forward to claim he/she is a Hang Tuah descendant.
Since there is so-called Hang Tuah tomb is Tanjung Keling, DNA testing on his remain should confirm Hang Tuah existence and his bloodline.
The only proof to say the existence of Hang Tuah is “Sejarah Melayu” [another problem is there are more than 20 versions of Malay Annals available] where Hang Tuah got no supernatural power and Hang Kasturi, not Hang Jebat was killed by Hang Tuah unlike those legend in the “Hikayat Hang Tuah”.
Ibrahim Ali got chance to be elevated as a new Malay hero to replace Hang Tuah.
‘Hang Li Po, Hang Tuah did not exist’
K Pragalath
Historian Prof Khoo Kay Kim says that the Ming dynasty’s records do not mention the princess or the famous warrior. He also points out that early Malaysian history is based on stories.
PETALING JAYA: According to history, Chinese Princess Hang Li Po was the fifth wife of Malaccan Sultan Mansur Shah who reigned from 1456-1477.
During this period, there was also the legend of the Sultan’s five famous warriors, Hang Tuah, Hang Jebat, Hang Kasturi, Hang Lekir and Hang Lekiu. It is a tale of friendship and loyalty, which every Malaysian had heard.
However, renowned historian Prof Khoo Kay Kim told radio station BFM this morning that Hang Li Po and the five warriors never existed.
Speaking to FMT later, he explained: “The Chinese Ming dynasty of the 16th century does not have records on them. These are very well preserved records.”
The KDU college chancellor also said he had read the writings of two Western historians and another prominent historian Wang Gung Wu on the Ming records which did not mention the characters either.
“History must be based on empirical records. Historians must only accept written records,” he said, adding that empirical records available here were at best “skanky”.
“There is no evidence in the Malaysian records,” he said. “These are stories. Early Malaysian history is based on stories.”
“We have had many stories. Only recently historians have taken the trouble to research the early Malaysian history period. A lot of stories accepted in the past cannot be proven,” he added.
Khoo also told FMT that there are rumours that the Malacca kingdom was founded in 1292 even though there were records to prove that it was formed in the 15th century.
He added that the government had instructed the syllabus committee to go through the school history syllabus to rectify the errors.
The syllabus, said Khoo, would be introduced in the year 2014.
http://www.freemalaysiatoday.com/2012/01/16/hang-li-po-hang-tuah-did-not-exist/
|
|
