IN HIS letter on Monday, 'Sleepy fishing village? Singapore a sizeable port of regional significance in 14th century', Mr Gilles Massot, replying to Mr Tan Yip Meng ('Back to the future, a sleepy fishing village', Nov 25), invoked my name and expertise. Mr Massot referred to a short paper I prepared for the colloquium The Makers And Keepers Of Singapore History at the Asia Research Institute on Nov 10. As the letter to the Forum touches on the history of pre-Raffles Singapore and is of considerable interest to the public, I would like to clarify my position on a few points.

Full Story

Thank you Mr Peter Borschberg!

For once we get to know something more substantive and nearer to the truth than the what must be a colonial fairytale spun by the Brits to embellish its role in Singapore's history.

But what struck me most that despite all those information and new research findings I have yet to read of some 'revision' of our history or at least the general broadcast of such new information for the Singapore public's general information. I also wonder whether the MOE has done any appropriate revision/changes to the students' history text at all levels?

I am also surprised that apparently a foreigner like Mr Peter Borschberg actually knows more about our 'true' history than our own historians, if we have any that is.

It can't be that the fairytale that generations of Singaporeans have been fed on Singapore's history during this period of a sleepy backwater fishing village, populated by orang laut is too convenient to change. For the sake of historical accuracy if nothing else, we should update our 'facts' as new and more accurate ones came to light. This is history after all, facts about a bygone era, nothing of any geopolitical significance to the present.

As we all know, history is written by those who hold power at the time. Hence, it is in Britain's interest to glorify the role of Stamford Raffles by portraying Singapore as a sleepy fishing village and transforming to "what it was then".

It is also in the interest of the Lee family to have transformed Singapore to "what it is now" from a sleepy fishing village.

I therefore do not see Singapore history being officially rewritten any time soon.

(#2) commentator_sc
_______________________________________

I am also surprised that apparently a foreigner like Mr Peter Borschberg actually knows more about our 'true' history than our own historians, if we have any that is.


True, this article informs me more about our history than the slide show I saw at our National Museum only last August.

can I change the 14th century to a new figure ? Just a request.

In his letter “Back to the future, a sleepy fishing village” on 25th November 2008, Tan Yip Meng said: “The real Singapore was a sleepy fishing village before Stamford Raffles.”

In one sense Tan was – I believe - right. The Singapore Island that Raffles surveyed in 1818 [and landed on in 1819] was indeed a “sleepy fishing village”. The reason is that the capital of the Johor-Riau-Lingga Empire was in Riau, not Singapore. In 1811 Temenggong [War Minister] Abdur-Rahman moved to Singapore [River mouth area] with his followers. The estimated population [including the Orang Lauts and Chinese gambir cultivators] of Singapore was then about 150. We should remember that at that time Singapore was an island surrounded by mangrove swamps. [Pasir Panjang, Jurong, and Tuas on the south-western coast and Sembawang and Punggol on the northern coast were swamps before they were developed subsequently.]

Because Tan did not state the time-frame in his statement, other writers were led to believe he is professing the view that Singapore was always a “sleepy fishing village” prior to Raffles’ visit and stay in Singapore.

If Tan does hold that view, then he is [perhaps] wrong [as pointed out by Gilles Massot in his letter “S'pore a sizeable port of regional importance in 14th century” of 1st November 2008, and Peter Borschberg in his letter “Singapore remained a functioning port: After fall of Temasek in 14th century” of 6th December 2008].

The fact that Singapore was a “sleepy fishing village” in the 1810s does not imply that the island was a “sleepy fishing village” at other times [or centuries] of Singapore's history. Conversely, the fact that Singapore was a “functioning port” in one century [say, during the 14th C] does not imply that it was so during another century [say, during the 18th C] as we can see from the examples of Malacca and Acheh. In other word, Singapore could be a “functioning port” during the 14th C but, due to regional circumstances, it went into a decline and turned into a “sleepy fishing village” during the 18th C and into the 1810s [when Raffles surveyed the island on his spy mission].

From my amateur readings, I believe [rightly or wrongly] that Massot and Borschberg have made some important [and correct] observations. And I am very thankful that I have learned much from their contributions.

In his letter, Massot made these [correct] observations, namely:
[a] Singapore was a “sizeable” port of regional importance as early as the 14th century,
[b] Singapore went into a “long decline” during the 16th to 18th centuries, and
[c] Singapore was known to “sailors of many nationalities” even during the 16th to 18th centuries.

In his letter, Peter Borschberg was right in stating:
[a] “Singapura had a sizeable and functioning port well beyond the 'fall' of Temasek”,
[b] “Florentine merchant-traveller Giovanni da Empoli wrote his last will and testament while anchored in the 'port of Singapura' .... in the year 1517”,
[c] “[Jacques] De Coutre's ship anchored in the port of Singapura in 1594 and he also told the King of Spain it was 'one of the best that serves all of the Indies'. All this hardly squares with the image of a sleepy seafront kampung.”
[d] “In several memorials addressed to the King of Spain, [Jacques] de Coutre recommends the construction of one fortification each on Singapore and Sentosa, and a third on what appears to be the north shore of Pulau Tekong Besar. De Coutre also makes reference to the town he calls Shabandaria, because this was the site of the shabandar or harbour master.”
[e] Raffles was “completely ignorant of Singapura's fate and history between the late 15th and early 18th century”.

Singapore was known to “sailors of many nationalities” not only during the 16th to 18th centuries but also as early as 150 AD [and perhaps even during 1000 BC].

On a map constructed from the coordinates given by Greek geographer and astronomer Ptolemy [living around 150 AD] is a dot named “Sabana” at the tip of the Golden Chersonese [Malay Peninsula, which was clearly depicted as a peninsula]. [J.O. Thomson, Everyman’s Classical Atlas, Third Edition, 1966, map 4-5,] In the “Index”, Professor Thomson wrote: “Sabana, Singapore?” [p. 87] China too was shown as “Serica Sinae”.

Borschberg’s reference to “Shabandaria” [“site of the shabandar or harbour master”] in de Coutre’s memorial is very illuminating to me, solving a puzzle which has confounded me for a very long time. [Thank you very much Peter Borschberg.] Clearly, de Coutre’s “Shabandaria” or “shabandar” has a precursor, ie., the “Sabana” of Ptolemy’s “map” in J.O. Thomson’s book.

Malaya and obviously Singapore were not unknown to the “West” during 1000 BC. There was – I believe – a thriving trade via the sea route between the Middle East, India, South East Asia, and China even as early as that time. King Solomon sent his hired Phoenician navigators to buy gold from “Ophir”. [See 1 King 10:11 and 2 Chronicles 8:18. 1st C Jewish historian Josephus identified “Ophir” as the Golden Chersonese, ie., Malaya. (Antiquities of the Jews, Book VIII, Chapter VI) No wonder, each voyage took 3 years (2 Chronicles 9:21). The navigators had to wait for the right monsoon winds from Arabia, India, and SEA before they could make each trip.] King Jehoshaphat of Judah in 870 BC obviously did not hired the experienced Phoenician navigators because his ships to Ophir were wrecked! [1 King 22:48. 2 Chronicles 20:36 gives a different - yet compatible - explanation for the shipwrecks.]

“Tumasik” was listed in 1365 as a dependency of the Majapahit. In 1462, the name “Singapur” appeared in Ibn Majid’s navigation tracts. [G.R. Tibbetts, A Study of the Arabic Texts Containing Material on South-East Asia (Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1979), p. 195-6, 198, 206, and 208.] Thus, the new name of the island emerged during that century.

I also thank Tan Yip Meng for his letter, which started the series of letters - from which I gained the requisite insights. Thanks and cheers.

It's time to revise our history book. Oh pls don't let Mark Lee to be our museum ambassador, he is more suited to partner with Jack Neo.
History is a serious matter just like politic.

On the reconstructed “map” of Ptolemy found in Prof Thomson’s book is also another town by the name “Perimula” on the east coast of Malaya near the Isthmus of Kra. It might be the port where Malayan gold was exported to the East while “Sabana” [“Shabandar”/Singapore] was the port where Malayan gold was exported to the West.

In his book “Southeast Asia in the Age of Commerce 1450-1680, Volume One: The Lands below the Winds” (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1988), page 96-8, Anthony Reid wrote:

“The importance placed on gold in the lands below the winds [ie., Southeast Asia] was doubtless a consequence of its widespread occurrence there – particularly in Sumatra, the Malay Peninsula, Luzon, Champa, and northern Sulawesi (see map 3 [on page 97]).
Until the early seventeenth century the mines of the Minangkabau area of central Sumatra were the region’s most prolific, responsible for the legendary wealth in gold of the early kingdom of Sri Vijaya. Gold was sieved from the sand of the eastern rivers and mined in the Minangkabau hills. There were said at one time to be 1,200 different mines there (Marsden 1783:168; cf. Eredia 1600:238-39). A Portuguese captive in Melaka learned that nine to ten bahar [about 70 kg] of gold were imported to that city each year, brought partly from Minangkabau and partly from Pahang in eastern Malaya (Araujo 1510:28). After the Portuguese capture of Melaka and the expansion of Aceh down the west coast of Sumatra, most of this Minangkabau gold was directed to Aceh....”

During the 14th C, Singapore was perhaps the “warehouse” for the Chinese-export “Mercury Jars” [found at the St Andrew Cathedral 2003-4 excavation site], which were re-exported – via smaller boats? - to the Malayan gold mines. [Mercury is still being used – dangerously – throughout the world for extracting minute grains of alluvial gold.] See the photo of a “Mercury Jar” in the “Site Report” or “Photo gallery” in:

http://www.seaarchaeology.com/v1/html/sg/st_andrew.html

Today, China is the world’s largest producer of mercury.

As we all know, Qin Emperor Shih Huang-Ti was reportedly buried in 210 BC in a mausoleum featuring, among other things, numerous rivers filled with mercury.

This is a brief reconstructed “history” [“story”] of ancient Singapore:

[1] c. 7000 BC – Malaya was inhabited by Stone Age and early Bronze Age “indigenous” people like the Negritos. [Speculation: Singapore was a densely forested island surrounded by mangrove swamps. However, with fresh water supply at the source and brackish water near the mouth, the ancient Singapore River mouth area too might have been inhabited by these people. And they were perhaps the ancestors of the “Orang Laut” or “Sea People”?]

[2] c. 4-3000 BC – Austronesians from southern China sailed to Taiwan. [Peter Bellwood, Prehistory of the Indo-Malaysian Archipelago (Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press, 1997), revised edition, p. 117-7]

[3] c. 2500-1500 BC – Some “Taiwanese” sailed to the Philippines, Borneo, Indonesia, and Malaya. [Speculation: Some Austronesians might have landed up at the Singapore River mouth area and integrated with the “indigenous” people, the “Orang Laut”.]

[4] 960 BC – Trade via the sea route thrived between the Middle East, India, South East Asia, and China. King Solomon sent his hired Phoenician navigators to buy gold from “Ophir”. [Speculation: The natives living at the Singapore River mouth could be participants in this global trade.]

[5] 870 BC - King Jehoshaphat of Judah in 870 BC did not hire the experienced Phoenician navigators. Thus, his ships to Ophir were wrecked! [1 King 22:48 & 2 Chronicles 20:36.]

[6] 2nd C AD – It seems indisputable that there was a settlement on Singapore. Han Dynasty (208 BC – 220 AD) bronze weapons were found in Borneo, Java, and Sumatra.

[Speculation: The natives were still living at the Singapore River mouth and could be participants in this global trade. Living near them were some traders from China, India, and Middle East.]

On a map constructed from the coordinates given by Greek geographer and astronomer Ptolemy [living around 150 AD] is a dot named “Sabana” at the tip of the Golden Chersonese [Malay Peninsula]. [J.O. Thomson, Everyman’s Classical Atlas, Third Edition, 1966, map 4-5.] In the “Index”, Professor Thomson wrote: “Sabana, Singapore?” [p. 87] “Sabana” was perhaps the Greek transliteration of “Shabandar” or “Shabandaria” [“site of the shabandar or harbour master”] in Jacques de Coutre’s 16th C memorial. [J. De Coutre’s memorial is cited in Peter Borschberg’s ST Forum letter “Singapore remained a functioning port: After fall of Temasek in 14th century” of 6th December 2008.

In his book “The First Century”: Emperors, Gods, and Everyman” [NY: HarperCollins Publishers, 1990,] p. 374, William K. Klingaman wrote:

“During [Roman Emperor] Clauius’ reign, a Greek sailor had discovered how to use the monsoon winds to sail directly from the Red Sea to India.... And though the journey was still painfully slow and difficult (sailors had to hug the coast, navigating at night by the stars), this sea route held out the promise that by circumventing Parthia completely, the stranglehold of extortionate Parthian middle men over the southern Silk Road might someday be broken.
Certainly there were already considerable contacts between India and Asia Minor in the cultural sphere, for one or more Christian missionaries – possibly though not necessarily St. Thomas, one of the original disciples, who allegedly reached southern India in the sixth decade of the century and was martyred near Madras – appeared to have established at least a single community of The Way along the north-western frontier of India, and perhaps another in the southern reaches of the subcontinent.”

In his book “Southeast Asia in the Age of Commerce 1450-1680, Volume One: The Lands below the Winds”, page 14, Anthony Reid estimated the population of Malaya (including Patani) at 500,000 in 1600. [Speculation: The population of Malaya was probably much lower during the 1st C AD. 100,000? 50,000? If that is so, then the population of Singapore was very small.]

In p. 60, he also stated that in 1614 “plague” killed two-third of the population Kedah [Malaya]. [Speculation: “Plague” could also have completely wiped out the Singapore population during its ancient history. But the island would be subsequently re-populated by tribes from Malaya and Indonesia.]

[7] 3rd C AD – A Chinese foreign mission to South-East Asia referred to an island “Pu-luo-chung” [a transliteration of the Malay “Pulau Ujong”], both meaning “Island at the end of a peninsula”. [Inference: Singapore Island was clearly identified by the Chinese.]

[8] 414 AD – Chinese pilgrim Fa-Hsien travelled overland to India but returned via sea. [Inference: He would have sailed close to the Singapore Island coast.]