Hang Tuah, etc. found not Malay but Chinese!

Origins of Hang Tuah ( and Hang Jebat Hang Lekiu etc)

By John Chow

Findings of the team of scientists, archaeologist, historian and other technical staff from the United State, United Kingdom, Germany, Canada, Yemen & Russia

The graves of Hang Tuah, Hang Jebat, Hang Lekiu and their close friends have been found and  their skeletons had been analysed.  Their DNA had been analysed and it is found that Hang Tuah, Hang Jebat, Hang Lekiu etc. are not Malay,  but Chinese  (Islamic Chinese,  just like the famous Admiral Cheng Ho).  Malacca was a protectorate of China at that time,  and the Emperor of China sent the Sultan of Malacca “yellow gifts’ as a token of his sovereignty.  The 5 warrior brothers were believed to be sent to help protect Malacca and its Sultan from Siam (Thailand). 

The Sultans of Malacca was directly descended from the Parameswara from Indonesia who fled to Tamasek (Singapore) and then to Malacca.  The Malaccan Sulatanate family eventually spread and became the Sultanate of the other Malay states of Perak and Johor.  Therefore,  the Sultanate royal court and the aristocrats of the Malay sultanates are actually foreigners from Sumatra and Java.  Hang Tuah and his friends were the protectors of the Indonesian aristocratic Parameswara family who came to Malaya around 1400 AD and claimed sovereignty of the land. 

For confirmation please refer to:-

The Federal Association of Arc & Research of Michigan, USA

John Chow’s notes:-

Hang is an unusual surname or name for a Malay. It sounds like s corruption of a Chinese surname.

In fact,Chinese names start with the surname first, and given names last.Malay names start with the given names first and the father’s name last(as in Ahmad bin Yusuf which means “Ahmad, the son of Yusuf).There is no surname in traditional Malay. There is no surname to carry forward to the next generation.

We also need to examine the genealogy.  We know that Hang Tuah’s father was Hang Mamat.  Here,  we do not see a Malay name transmission.  We see a name being carried forward.  It is also noted that the placement of the name that is carried forward is in front.  This indicates that the surname is “Hang”.  It is the transmission of Chinese names.  

We also know that Hang Tuah’s son is Hang Nadim.  Again,  the name “Hang” is carried forward,  and yet again,  auspiciously in front,  as a Chinese name would be,  with the surname in front.  There is no indication of a Malay naming convention.

Note that Hang Nadim is also known as Si Awang (Malays would colloquially refer to others as “Si”.   “A”  or “Ah” is a common prefix for referring to others in Chinese.  Thus,  a person with surname Wang/Huang would be referred to as “Si Ah Wang” in Malaysia  - Mr. Ah Huang) by the Malays. 

Note that Hang Tuah’s mother is Dang Merdu.  “Dang” would be quite an unusual surname for a Malay also.  However,  “Dang”  or “Tang” is a common Chinese surname.  Note that the name “Dang”  is in front,  signifying that this is a Chinese naming convention,  yet again. 

Some Malays will argue that “Hang” is an honorific term (Humba) for those that serve the royal courts.  http://www.freewebs.com/suaraanum/0506b02.htm   This argument is not tenable.  Firstly,  where is the precedence in sultanates that preceded the Malaccan Sultanate?  Secondly,  where is the evidence that this is so in succeeding sultanates?  Thirdly,  where is the evidence that this practice was carried out in the sultanate of that time?  And has that Sultan given it to other court official and the royal family and their court officials and courtesans?  Where is the evidence?  Fourthly,  since Hang Tuah’s father is called Hang Mamat,  then he would have served the Sultan prior to Hang Tuah.  But there is no evidence this is so.  In fact,  there is evidence that Hang Tuah was a very poor kid in the village.  His father was not a high court official,  and he was not brought up in the court.  In addition,  since if Hang Tuah’s father Hang Mamat had already served as a high court official,  why must Hang Tuah be educated in Bahasa Melayu and court etiquette etc. again since the family is already indoctrinated in royal protocol? 

"Dalam perbendaharaan nama-nama orang Melayu semasa zaman kesultanan Melaayu Melaka, tiada terdapat nama-nama seumpama Hang Tuah, Hang Kasturi, Hang Jebat, Hang Lekir, Hang Lekiu, ringkasnya ringkasan yang bermula dengan ¡®Hang¡¯. Sejarah juga telah mencatatkan nama-nama dari bangsa Cina yang bermula dengan Hang, Tan, Maa dan Lee. Ia bergantung kepada suku kaum atau asal-usul keturunan mereka dari wilayah tertentu dari China. Kemungkinan untuk mendakwa bahawa gelaran ¡®Hang¡¯ telah dianugerahkan oleh Raja-Raja Melayu juga tiada asasnya. "

The last sentence loosely translates as, "There's the possibility to propose that the term "Hang" conferred as a honorific by the Malay Kings also has no basis."

 Moreover,  before the time of the 5 warriors with their close families during this close period of relationship with the Chinese,  there are no Malays with this name.

Note that the Chinese ‘princess’ who married the Sultan of Malacca was called “Hang Li Po”.  Here,  we not only see the same name,  but the name is also in front,  indicating a Chinese naming convention.  Hang Li Po brought along with her many servants and bodyguards from China who became the Baba and Nyonya's of Malacca  -  these folk exist to this day.  Chinese who do not know how to speak or write Chinese.  They have been totally ‘malayanised”.  Babas are people of Chinese descend who have been malayanised to such an extent that they wear Malay clothing, eat Malay food (with some Chinese food), speak Malay, and do not speak or write Chinese.  Malacca is famous for its Baba communities.  The only thing that is Chinese about them is that they are of Chinese ancestry.  If you say that Hang Tuah is a Malay in the same sense that these Chinese have been malayanised,  then you might be quite right.  However,  at this present moment,  we are arguing on the basis whether he was an ethnic Malay or an ethnic Chinese,  in the sense of blood ancestry. . 

There is an old Chinese tradition where warriors or servants in the royal palace were given or re-issued with surnames given by the emperor,  to signify that they belong to the emperor,  or to one of his offsprings.  Therefore,  it is possible that some very special bodyguards of the emperor or the royal family,  have the same surname to signify that they are a unit formed especially to protect that one owner.  Since the Princess Hang Li Po was given away in marriage to a strategic partner whose land the emperor wanted to ensure is safe and stable,  he assigned a group of able warriors to the Princess Li Po,  and he gave their families the same surname.  This is not an unusual practice for the Chinese emperor. 

As for Hang Kasturi having 4 characters in his name,  it is unusual,  but it does happen that some Chinese have only 2 characters,  and some have 4 characters in their names.  For example,  my paternal grandmother had only 2 characters in her name. 

See: http://www.anu.edu.au/asianstudies/ahcen/proudfoot/mmp/rtm/teachers.html

 

In the GENEALOGICAL TREE OF THE ROYAL FAMILIES OF PERAK STATE  (http://www.geocities.com/aizaris/genealogy),  you may note 2 things:-

1)            Evidence that traditional Malay naming conventions do not carry the name of the father forward.

2)            There is no surname to carry forward

3)            Neither name nor surname are placed in front.

4)            The genealogy of the early part of the lineage tree makes reference to Chinese ancestry:-  “Putera   Chedra China”   “Puetra China”   and then later  “Paduka Sri Cina”  

This proves there has been early Chinese links in the Malay/Indonesian races and aristocratic lineages.

 One Malay argued that Hang Tuah was already in the service of the Sultan before Hang Li Po was sent to Malacca.  However,  there is not evidence of this.  A probable reference is the semi folklore Hikayat Hang Tuah,  whicjh is not very reliable as it has many contradiction to Sejarah Melayu.  From the Ming Dynasty chronicles does not mention Hang Li Po or Hang Tuah but did mention the trip of Sultan Mansur Shah.  See: http://thepenangfileb.bravepages.com/histr36.htm

It is even possible that Hang Li Po was a minor “princess”  (ie.  only a daughter of a court official) who the emperor ordered to be given away to marry a vassal sate in order to ensue loyalty and close diplomatic relation.  The whole event was blown up to given the foreign king a big ego boost that the great Chinese overlord gave him his own daughter in marriage!  (It is doubtful that the conservative Chinese emperors would give their daughters away to somebody living in a foreign land very far away).  It has happened before in the history of China.  For example,  the Tibetans think that their King Sonten Gampo forced the Chinese emperor to give away his daughter in marriage in order to make peace with great big powerful Tibet.  The story from the Chinese side is that the Chinese emperor tricked the egotistical Tibetan king into believing that the palace maid was a princess and sent her off with her retinue and gifts.  It was a ‘diplomatic trick”.  Therefore,  it is possible that the Chinese court repeated the trick on Sultan Mansur Shah,  and gave him a “Chinese princess” with many gifts for the Sultan.  In the meantime,  he sent some warriors to the Sultanate to help ensure peace, safety and stability in the region – all in China’s national interests.  Protect your friends and your interests will be protected.  Or it could have been a ploy used by the Chinese emperor and the Malaccan sultan to use this marriage of a “princess” to deter the Siamese kings from encroaching on Malaccan territory.   Siam would not dare to invade Malacca whose sultan is a son in law of the mighty Chinese empire!

Footnote:-

The 5 sworn brothers who studied and practised Silat together are:-

Hang Tuah, Hang Jebat, Hang Lekir, Hang Lekiu and Hang Kasturi. 

Further references:-

Serajah Melayu – History of the Malay Peninsula

http://www.sabrizain.demon.co.uk/malaya/parames.htm

Parameswara and the founding of the Sultanate of Malacca    by John Chow

 This is my limited understanding of this subject matter.

Related posts:

Malaysian History & Legend; facts & fallacies; myths ...

Hang-ups over Malaysian history 

Call for a damn good shot: Light not founded Penang and Raffles, Singapore! Hang Tuah.., mere legends?

Myths, prejudice and history

Question Time by P.GUNASEGARAM

It is next to impossible to make history objective, but we must give it a damn good shot.

LEGEND is a lie that has attained the dignity of age. – HL Mencken The very ink with which history is written is merely fluid prejudice. – Mark Twain

Remember Jalan Birch in Kuala Lumpur, near the Merdeka Stadium? It’s been called Jalan Maharajalela for many years now, Birch becoming a victim of a programme of Malaysianisation of road names.

Image via Wikipedia

But Birch also became a victim of Malaysianisation of history – from hero, he became a villain, and his killer, yes, Maharajalela, became a hero in the flash of a road sign change.

Few things can so poignantly illustrate the change in historical perspective as a country changes.

JWW Birch was a British resident (adviser to the Sultan) in Perak in the 19th century. The British used a system of residents to control most Malayan states. A local called Dato Maharajalela assassinated Birch.

Although the reasons why he did this are obscure, Maharajalela is now hailed as a nationalist who opposed colonialism and died in the process – he and his accomplice were hanged.

Hence his elevation to hero status and Birch’s relegation to villain, a representative of an occupying force.

I remember my early history textbooks post-independence put Maha ra jalela in bad light until years later when the historical perspective began to shift.

We studied in our history books that Sir Francis Light was the founder of Penang which is ridiculous from a Malayan/Malaysian perspective because Malayans must have known the existence of Penang long before it was “founded” by Light. To this day, Wikipedia states that Light founded Penang. How confounding is that.

Captain Francis Light:  The statue of Captain Sir Francis Light at Penang, Malaysia

When the British “founded” places, it meant they then established a system of governance with rules of law. There is a court system and a police force. Prior to their “founding” there was no such legal system among the locals.

Then, there was Sir Stamford Raffles who similarly was said to have “founded” Singapore conveniently and erroneously erasing the arrival earlier to that place by a prince from Palembang, Sang Nila Utama, some 500 years earlier.

Image via Wikipedia

It seems like even Singaporeans believe their history started with Raffles. I was at a performance put up by Singaporean MBA students in 1991 which started off the history of the country from the time Raffles “founded” it in 1819. How unfortunate!

It was with great amusement that I read many years ago of a stunt pulled by an American (Red) Indian.

After arriving in Italy via a commercial flight, he promptly announced that he had founded Italy.

And what right did he have to make that outrageous claim? The same that Christopher Columbus, an Italian who sailed on behalf of the Spanish monarchs, had when he proudly claimed that he had discovered the Americas (at that time Columbus thought it was the East Indies) in 1492, a land already in habited by millions of others.



Now, Prof Emeritus Tan Sri Khoo Kay Kim has controversially raised lots of heckles and temperatures by saying that Malay warriors such as Hang Tuah and Hang Jebat were mere legends – myths invented by fertile minds for the amusement of others, much like the Greek gods.

He is, however, a renowned historian with no political ideology, racial or national axe to grind.

To his critics he has this to say: “If you don’t agree with me, bring out the sources to show I am wrong. You cannot simply say you don’t agree. I am saying that these things were not true because no reliable sources confirmed they existed.”

That is a clear indication as to how we should go about clarifying history.

History must be based on facts. It must seek to recreate - without any ideological, national, racial or any other bias - what happened to who, what, when, where, why and how, the journalistic five W’s and one H.

Otherwise it remains a myth and legend.

Just as in the case of Hang Tuah, one should seek to ascertain whether Maharajalela was indeed a hero by trying to establish, based on facts, his motives for killing Birch.

Otherwise it becomes a mere speculation and interpretation which is not history.

We are a relatively young country and yes, we would need to rewrite history from the perspective of Malaysia and Malaysians. No, Light had not founded Penang and Raffles, Singapore.

There may be many questions we can’t answer but we must make an effort to find them. And we need a proper system of archiving so that future generations know things the way they were.

History in school must not be a tool for nation building or used for any other agenda but to paint a true picture, as far as that is possible given all our collective prejudices, of Malaysia and of the world.

It needs to have balance, fairness and most of all truth about everyone’s contribution to nation building.
It must not seek to aggrandise one race or religion at the expense of others.

It must have enough of a mix of subject matter to ensure Malaysians have sufficient appreciation of Malaysia and how it has come to be where it is as well as an unbiased understanding of the state of the world. Anything else and it would become poor propaganda instead.

The best way towards this is to have a curriculum drawn up by historians and true educationists and to put in place a rigorous means of verification if we need to change history or at least what we learn of it.
You can interpret history but you must not rewrite it without factual basis.

It is next to impossible to make it objective but we must give it a damn good shot nevertheless, if we are not to live in and perpetuate a lie.

Independent consultant and writer P Gunasegaram (t.p.guna@gmail.com) says we need an accurate history before we learn anything from it.

Hang Tuah part of Malay cultural heritage

I REFER to Prof Emeritus Khoo Kay Kim’s statement declaring that Hang Tuah and Kris Taming Sari are the figments of somebody’s imagination based on the lack of credible evidence to authenticate their existence. As such they are not historical facts.

Image via Wikipedia

But these two elements are part of the Malay cultural heritage and have been embedded in the annals of the Malay civilisation, initially through oral tradition and later recorded in literary, dramatic and scholarly works.

Together with Puteri Gunung Ledang, Nenek Tempayan, Mat Jenin and Lebai Malang, they have adorned our lives through the retelling of their adventures and foibles in literary, dramatic and cinematic works.

They provide us with the opportunities of exploring the moral and ethical percepts of their actions.
Such traditional characters are ingrained as part of our psyche.

Many of us were brought up with Hang Tuah representing the epitome of loyalty, bravery and humility, character traits of such universal and noble stature.

In one swift swoop, Prof Khoo demolished part of our mores and lore citing the lack of concrete evidence to corroborate their existence.

As such, he suggested that they cannot be included as part of the history of the Malays.

But history itself is not beyond reproach. For historical narrations are a conglomeration of facts and fallacies that are given credence by those in power who tend to benefit most from such accounts.

And again, history was written by the victors who neglected the contributions of the vanquished, except those that portray them in a negative light. Thus, the “facts” were slanted to favour the powerful and the ruling elite.

Look at the account of the American Indians in the history of the American West. It portrays them as barbaric and evil and the white man as humane people who civilised these savages by putting them in reservations.

Likewise, the skewed perception of the aboriginal people in the annals of the Australian history.

In the same vein, a “historical” account of Palestine by the Jews would differ markedly from that of the Palestinians.

Similarly, the descriptive exploits of the Christian Crusade extolling the bravery and virtues of King Arthur would not tally with the account of the Muslims praising Sallahuddin Al Ayobi and the Arabs in the defence of Islam.

Thus, oral and recorded history is perceived from the perspective of the recorder who is not a disinterested party.

As for Hang Tuah and his companions, they have for so long been part of our cultural history. So too is the Kris Taming Sari which may not just refer to a single physical entity but rather a recognition bestowed on those that possess mystical and supernatural aura.

MOHAMED GHOUSE NASURUDDIN, Universiti Sains Malaysia, Penang   

Related post 

Malaysian History & Legend; facts & fallacies; myths, heroes or zeroes?