MELAYU ITU ISTILAH ASAL, AUSTRONESIA HANYALAH ISTILAH YANG BARU DICIPTA 1899

Oleh Prof. Dr. Solehah Yaacob

ALAM MELAYU, SATU PEMERINTAHAN | SEBELUM ISTILAH "AUSTRONESIA"?

Apabila kita mempelajari sejarah, kita sering melihat Alam Melayu sebagai himpunan kerajaan yang berasingan.

Tetapi persoalannya...

Adakah pembahagian yang kita kenali hari ini memang difahami sedemikian oleh masyarakat pada zaman tersebut, atau ia merupakan istilah yang dibentuk kemudian dalam kajian akademik?

Inilah persoalan yang dibahaskan oleh Prof. Dr. Solehah dalam perkongsian kali ini.

Beliau mengajak kita meneliti bagaimana istilah boleh mempengaruhi cara kita memahami sejarah. Menurut perbahasan yang dikongsikan, istilah seperti "Austronesia" dan penggunaan nama "Srivijaya" dalam kerangka sejarah moden dibincangkan sebagai sebahagian daripada proses pengelasan dan penamaan yang berkembang dalam kajian akademik.

Prof. Dr. Solehah turut membawakan satu sudut pandang bahawa sebelum lahirnya istilah-istilah tersebut, rantau ini boleh difahami sebagai Alam Melayu yang mempunyai jaringan pemerintahan maritim, hubungan perdagangan dan raja-raja Melayu yang saling berkait.

Antara persoalan yang dibahaskan:

• Bilakah istilah "Austronesia" mula diperkenalkan dalam kajian akademik?

• Bagaimanakah sesuatu istilah boleh mempengaruhi kefahaman kita terhadap sejarah?

• Adakah kerajaan-kerajaan di Alam Melayu wajar dilihat secara berasingan atau sebagai sebahagian daripada jaringan yang lebih besar?

• Mengapakah sumber sejarah perlu dinilai bersama konteks zaman dan perkembangan ilmu sejarah?

Ini bukan sekadar perbincangan tentang nama atau istilah.

Ini adalah satu ajakan untuk melihat semula sejarah Alam Melayu daripada pelbagai perspektif, memahami bagaimana sesuatu istilah terbentuk, serta meneliti bagaimana bahasa dan penamaan boleh membentuk cara kita melihat sebuah tamadun.

Jika tuan/puan ingin mengikuti lebih banyak perkongsian mengenai sejarah, Tamadun Melayu, manuskrip, bahasa Arab dan pembinaan peradaban, boleh terus membuat pendaftaran melalui pautan berikut:

https://linktr.ee/mindheartmastery

Atau boleh terus menghubungi / WhatsApp Pn. Muniraa (017-691 2042) untuk maklumat lanjut mengenai program-program yang bakal berlangsung.

Semakin kita memahami asal-usul sesuatu istilah, semakin kita sedar bahawa cara kita menamakan sejarah juga boleh mempengaruhi cara kita memahaminya.

Petikan Jawapan Prof Dr. Solehah Yaacob Kepada Philip Rajoo:

Philip Rajoo:

Prof. Dr. Solehah raises an important question: Is "Austronesia" a modern academic invention, and should we instead see the region as a unified "Alam Melayu" with interconnected maritime kingdoms?

This is a thought-provoking argument. However, it contains several problematic assumptions that need to be examined carefully.

What Prof. Solehah Gets Right

1. Terminology Does Shape Understanding

This is absolutely correct. The words we use to describe history influence how we think about it. When we use the term "Austronesia," we are applying a modern academic framework. When we use "Alam Melayu," we are applying a different framework. Both are choices that shape our understanding.

1. The Term "Austronesia" Is Relatively Recent

Prof. Solehah is correct that the term "Austronesia" was coined in 1899 by the German scholar Wilhelm Schmidt. Before that, people did not use this term to describe themselves. This is a valid historical observation.

1. The Region Had Interconnected Kingdoms

It is also true that the Malay world had interconnected maritime kingdoms. Srivijaya, Malacca, Kedah, and others were linked by trade, language, and culture. They were not isolated from each other.

Where the Argument Falls Short

1. "Melayu" Is Also a Relatively Recent Term

Here is the problem. If Prof. Solehah argues that "Austronesia" is a modern invention, she must also acknowledge that "Melayu" is also a term that evolved over time.

As we have shown in our book:

· The word "Melayu" originally referred to a specific kingdom in Jambi, Sumatra

· It did not originally mean the entire Malay world

· It was not used as a unified ethnic label until much later

· It was the British who later expanded it to mean the entire peninsula in 1849

So if "Austronesia" is a "new" term from 1899, "Melayu" as a broad ethnic label is also relatively new. Neither term is "ancient" in the way Prof. Solehah implies.

1. The "Alam Melayu" Concept Is Also a Construction

Prof. Solehah suggests that "Alam Melayu" is a natural, organic term that existed before modern academic labels. But is this true?

The concept of a unified "Alam Melayu" was not how the people of the region saw themselves. They identified with:

· Their local kingdoms (Kedah, Malacca, Johor, Pahang)

· Their rulers (Sultans, Maharajas)

· Their communities

The idea of a single "Malay world" encompassing all these kingdoms is also a later construction—whether by colonial administrators or modern scholars.

1. The Orang Asli Are Completely Ignored

This is the most serious problem. In Prof. Solehah's discussion of "Alam Melayu," the Orang Asli—the true original inhabitants—are completely invisible.

If we are talking about the "original" people of the region, we must start with the Orang Asli. They were here for 50,000 years before the Austronesians arrived. Their languages, cultures, and histories are distinct from the Malays.

To talk about "Alam Melayu" as if it is the only legitimate framework is to erase the Orang Asli from history. This is exactly the same problem we see in the "Tanah Melayu" narrative.

1. The Austronesian Framework Is Based on Science, Not Politics

Prof. Solehah seems to suggest that "Austronesia" is just a modern academic invention with no basis in reality. But this is not true.

The Austronesian framework is based on:

· Linguistics: The Malay language is part of the Austronesian language family, which includes languages from Madagascar to Hawaii

· Genetics: DNA studies prove the Austronesian migration from Taiwan

· Archaeology: The spread of outrigger canoes, pottery, and crops shows the Austronesian expansion

This is not a "colonial" invention. It is a scientific framework that helps us understand the real history of human migration.

1. The Argument Confuses "Term" with "Reality"

There is a logical problem here. Just because the term "Austronesia" was coined in 1899 does not mean the Austronesian people did not exist before 1899.

The people existed. They had their own languages, cultures, and histories. The term "Austronesia" was simply a label that scholars created to describe a pre-existing reality.

The same is true of "Melayu." The people existed. The kingdoms existed. The term was just a label that evolved over time.

1. The Promotional Element

As with the previous discussion, this post ends with a promotional link for a program. This raises questions about whether the primary purpose is academic discourse or marketing. It would be stronger if the argument stood on its own without a sales pitch.

What Prof. Solehah's Argument Misses

The Simple Timeline

Let us look at the simple timeline:

Period What Existed What Term Was Used

Before 5th century CE Orang Asli, Austronesian peoples No unified term

5th–13th century CE Hindu-Buddhist kingdoms Local names (Kedah, Srivijaya, etc.)

13th century onward Islamic sultanates Local names, "Melayu" as ethnic label

1849 British colonial rule "Tanah Melayu" invented

1899 Academic linguistics "Austronesia" coined

The key point: Both "Melayu" and "Austronesia" are terms that were coined or expanded at specific points in history. Neither is "ancient." Neither is "original."

The Deeper Problem

The deeper problem with Prof. Solehah's argument is that it seems to be suggesting that the "Melayu" framework is more valid than the "Austronesia" framework because it is "older" or "more authentic."

Both frameworks are useful for different purposes:

· Austronesia helps us understand the broader migration patterns and linguistic connections across the Pacific and Indian Oceans

· Melayu helps us understand the specific cultural and political history of the Malay Peninsula and Sumatra

Neither framework is "better." They are just different lenses for viewing the same reality.

Prof.Dr. Solehah Yaacob"

Philip Rajoo: The Philological Misconception "Melayu" is ancient geophilology, NOT a 1849 British invention. The critique claims "Melayu" was only expanded to a broad regional term by the British in 1849 and originally referred merely to a localised kingdom in Jambi. Ancient toponymy and primary epigraphic and historical records prove "Melayu" as a macro-regional descriptor predates Western colonial rule by over a millennium. 

Chinese imperial records as early as the 7th century CE refer to Mo-lo-yu (644 CE) as a strategic maritime centre integrated into the broader Malayo-Polynesian trade matrix. 

The Sanskrit and Epigraphic evidence could be discovered in the Ramayana and Vayu Purana, which refer to Malayadvipa ("the Malay Island/Continent"), denoting the entire Sunda region as a cohesive geographical entity rich in gold and spices—centuries before any European presence. 

Also, the self-designation in Epigraphy in the 14th-century Amoghapasa inscription (1347 CE) explicitly invokes Adityawarman as Maharajadiraja of Bhumi Malayu, proving that indigenous rulers actively used "Melayu" to signify a broader territorial and sovereign realm, long before British colonial administration. Otherwise, the epistemological disconnect is considered an organic civilizational space vs. taxonomical categorisation. 

The critic equates the term "Austronesia" (coined in 1899) with "Alam Melayu," asserting both are mere modern labels. 

Ontological vs. Taxonomical Difference: "Austronesia," called "Austronesia," is an exonym created by Western linguists (Wilhelm Schmidt) using Greek roots (Austro = South, Nesos = Island) to categorise language families under a 19th-century positivist framework. 

In contrast, "Alam Melayu" (or Nusantara / Tanah Melayu) is an endonymic worldview, an organic civilizational ecosystem defined by a shared lingua franca (Bahasa Melayu Klasik), maritime jurisprudence (Undang-Undang Laut Melaka), custom (Adat), and trade networks across the Malacca Straits and Sunda Shelf. It also conflates an artificial taxonomy designed for comparative linguistics with a living, historical civilizational sphere and misunderstands how indigenous societies conceptualised their geopolitical reality.

The false dichotomy regarding Orang Asli and Indigenous continuity of the fallacy critique accuses the "Alam Melayu" narrative of "erasing" Orang Asli by portraying them as distinct and completely separate from Malays. However, the continuum of the Malay World, as modern ethnolinguistics and deep-history genetics recognize that Orang Asli (Semang, Senoi, and Proto-Malay) and coastal Malay populations do not exist in isolation but rather form an indigenous continuum (Orang Asal) inhabiting the Sunda Shelf before its inundation. In addition, cultural and trade symbiosis in historical records shows Orang Asli were integral actors within the polity of Alam Melayu, serving as forest-product collectors, guardians of inland trade routes, and specialised scouts for the Malay Sultans. To claim that using "Alam Melayu" erases Orang Asli is a divisive binary that ignores thousands of years of ecological and political symbiosis between inland and coastal indigenous populations.

There was a methodological bias in the "Out of Taiwan" model. The critic presents the "Out of Taiwan" model for Austronesian migration as absolute scientific consensus. The genetic and archaeological debates on the rigid "Out of Taiwan" (Express Train) hypothesis have been heavily challenged by recent archaeogenetics and palaeogeography (e.g., Prof. Stephen Oppenheimer's Eden in the East). Also, the Sunda Shelf Hypothesis, based on DNA studies focusing on mitochondrial lineages (M7c, E1a), demonstrates that human expansion flowed out of the drowned Sunda Continent (Pentas Sunda) into continental Asia and the Pacific following post-glacial sea-level rises (~14,000–8,000 BP). The "Alam Melayu" paradigm aligns with this deep-time Sundaland maritime origin, whereas the colonial "Austronesian" narrative often oversimplifies human migration into a one-way unidirectional displacement.

C&P

5 August 2026: 10.57 p.m

DOWN MEMORY LANE: BULATAN CHOW KIT, KL

The 1977 photo shows Bulatan Chow Kit, which was later removed to ease traffic congestion.

Intersection Today

The Chow Kit roundabout has completely disappeared. Today, the harsh concrete intersection where Jalan Pahang, Jalan Ipoh, Jalan Tuanku Abdul Rahman, and Jalan Raja Muda collide is dominated by the overhead KL Monorail tracks. The lush landscaped green island from 1977 was asphalted over to handle high traffic volume. While the historic pre-war shophouses still line the streets, the surrounding area has evolved to mix its heritage. Traditional stalls like those at Bazaar Baru Chow Kit now sit alongside modern boutique spots like The Chow Kit – An Ormond Hotel and hipster cafes. 

History of KL's Old Roundabouts

Built in 1956, the Chow Kit Roundabout (also known as the Raja Muda Roundabout) is widely regarded as Malaysia’s first major urban roundabout. It was originally designed to manage traffic at a quieter edge of the city, complete with a local post office located on its northern quadrant. During the late 20th century, Kuala Lumpur relied heavily on iconic rotaries—such as the massive Bulatan Pekeliling (Edinburgh Circus)—to regulate multi-road traffic. As KL underwent rapid vehicle explosion in the 1990s, these wide, grassy circles quickly transformed into major gridlock bottlenecks, forcing the city to demolish them in favor of multi-tier flyovers, traffic lights, and rail lines. 

1970s Malaysian Transport

The black-and-yellow vehicles shown on the bottom left are classic Austin Cambridge and Morris Oxford taxis, which served as the backbone of urban transport across the Klang Valley during the 1970s. This era also marked the height of the iconic Bas Mini (Mini Bus) system, introduced in 1975. Painted in bright pinkish-red colors with white stripes, these legendary, non-air-conditioned buses were famous for their daredevil, fast-paced driving style. They tightly packed passengers as they darted through neighborhoods like Chow Kit and Kampung Baru before they were phased out in the late 1990s. 

Archival Heritage of Bulatan Pekeliling

Old archives of Bulatan Pekeliling (Edinburgh Circus) show it bordered by the iconic, blocky Pekeliling Flats, which were built in 1967 as one of KL's earliest high-rise low-cost housing projects. Images from the 1970s and 1980s capture a massive, green grassy roundabout bustling with vintage vehicles. This historic rotary was completely demolished by the late 1990s and early 2000s to make way for the multi-tier flyovers of Jalan Tun Razak and the infrastructure for the KL Monorail and LRT lines.

Walking Route: Historic Shophouses of Jalan TAR

You can easily explore the surviving pre-war architecture along Jalan Tuanku Abdul Rahman (Jalan TAR) via this historic walking route:

• Stop 1: Chow Kit Monorail Station – Start at the northern end of Jalan TAR. Step outside to see where the old roundabout once stood, now covered by monorail tracks. 
• Stop 2: Pre-war Shophouses (Nos. 1–19) – Walk south down the road to spot early 1900s Utilitarian and Art Deco shophouses featuring narrow five-foot ways and wooden window shutters.
• Stop 3: Capital Cafe (Kedai Makanan Capital) – Stop at No. 213. This iconic 1950s kopitiam still functions with its original tile floors, serving generations of multicultural patrons. 
• Stop 4: SOGO & Pertama Complex – Conclude at the intersection of Jalan Dang Wangi, where heritage architecture directly contrasts with KL's earliest modern shopping complexes. 

Transition: Rail Replacing Automotive Pathways

The city's rapid development directly pushed out old automotive circular hubs. The introduction of the LRT Ampang/Sri Petaling Line and the KL Monorail required dense concrete pillars to be planted straight through the centers of old open roundabouts. Ground transport lanes were completely shifted and streamlined into one-way grids to accommodate heavy multi-lane traffic, trading the slow, scenic green circles of the 1970s for high-speed mass transit infrastructure. 

Reference:

1. The Edge: Cover Story: Preserving history for a sustainable future.
2. Badan Warisan Malaysia: Kuala Lumpur Heritage Trails.
3. The Malaysian Reserve: The Allure of Old and New Chow Kit.

Hj Zulheimy Maamor

3 August 2026: 2.08 p.m

THE BATTLE OF BETING MARO 1849

Source: Looking into the Past of Sarawak - Borneo

REKAYA PEMANCHA DANA BAYANG SERANG MUKAH

The story begins with James Brooke’s first mention of the Orang Kaya Pemancha Dana Bayang, “the most dreaded Saribas ‘pirate’, the man who commanded the marauding fleets,” (Pringle 1970:56) in a journal entry of 1842:

“At Sarawak I found most alarming reports of an intended invasion from the united forces of Saribas and Skrang, and received, moreover, the agreeable information that Bayang, one of the leading men of the former river, had suspended a basket on a high tree, ready to receive my head when he returned in triumph from the conquest of my country. I cared little for these idle threats, though I did not neglect taking the necessary precautions.” (Brooke, James 1848 [I]:313-14)

In the month of June the following year, Brooke mounted his first campaign against Dana Bayang at Padeh, which resulted in the first defeat of the Saribas by a foreign enemy. Captain Keppel, the Senior Officer in the Straits Settlements Naval Station in Singapore, who was enlisted by Brooke to help him ‘suppress’ the Saribas ‘pirates’, wrote of the ‘success’ of the expedition that destroyed Dana Bayang’s stockade: “For the greater part of the night, the burning of the houses made it bright as day… The country round had been laid waste. All had been desolated, together with their extensive winter stores of rice. It is a melancholy sight.” (Keppel 1862 [II]:51, 62)

Unbeknownst to Keppel, the Saribas did not truly suffer an overwhelming loss. The Iban version of events gives a very different story. Scouts would return with vital information on enemy movements, and it was de rigueur for the women and children together with all ritual paraphernalia, valuable property, and stores of food and grains to be secreted away in the deep jungle well in advance of approaching trouble. Iban warfare had always been one of guerrilla tactics, which Low seems to have alluded to when describing that “these Dyaks constantly retreat before a superior enemy into the jungles and fastness, [and] it has been found almost impossible to bring their forces either on shore or at sea to a general action.” (Low 1988:191) Interestingly, Marryat also observed the same manœuvre, writing that “Should their enemies have gained intelligence of the meditated attack, they take the precaution of sending away their women, children, and furniture, into the jungle, and place men in ambush on the banks of the river, who attack the assailants as they advance. If the attacking party is completely victorious, they finish their work of destruction by setting fire to all the houses, and cutting down all the cocoa-nut trees.” (Marryat 1848:81) What Keppel thought he had thoroughly devastated were merely empty shells of longhouses and padi fields that had been previously harvested. This was the ruse employed by the Saribas who could almost always immediately regroup and renew their resistance of Brooke. To buy time and continue the charade, on the 12th of June, 1843, Dana Bayang sent peace emissaries to Brooke who, as a result, assumed the Saribas subdued and pacified. Brooke later wrote,

“The Orang Kaya Pomancha, of Sarebas, is now with me - the dreaded and the brave, as he is termed by the natives. He is small, plain-looking and old, with his left arm disabled, and his body scarred with spear wounds. I do not dislike the look of him, and of all the chiefs of that river I believe he is the most honest, and steers his course straight enough.” (Brooke, James 1848 [II]:78)

Later, Mengan Tuai, the wife of Dana Bayang passed away. The Iban of the 19th-century had a belief that the souls of recently departed leaders and, sometimes, their wives, required a severed head so that the departed soul can be released from the realm of the living and the living can be released from mourning obligations. This Dana Bayang intended to accomplish by procuring a head from raiding the north-western coast of Borneo. In July of 1849, Dana Bayang amassed and led a formidable war fleet to raid north from the Saribas to the Rejang. He recruited the support of his allies which included the Saribas Malays, the Skrang Iban and the riverine chiefs of the Paku and Rimbas; Linggir Mali Lebu being one of these riverine chiefs and also one of Dana Bayang’s tuai kayau or war lieutenant. The British colonial administrator and naturalist Hugh Low describes Dana Bayang thus:

“All the tribes of Sarebas, though each has its particular chief, acknowledge in war the authority of the Orang Kaya Pa-mancha; but it does not appear that, excepting when his orders and instructions agree with their own wishes, the petty chiefs, who command their own boats and the people of their own villages, pay particular attention to them, but still they always look up to this old man - who has distinguished himself by his bravery - with respect, and his opinion possesses great weight in their councils, more particularly, as, from his sanguinary nature, and the long practised custom of taking heads, his store of which he is always anxious to increase, the counsels of peace are seldom those he offers to the nation.” (Low 1988:183)

Dana Bayang’s raid up the northern coast of Sarawak came to Brooke’s attention and on the 24th of July, 1849, Brooke’s forces took up positions at the mouths of the Saribas and Kalaka rivers, which are separated by a narrow point called Beting Maro, to await Dana Bayang’s return. Baring-Gould and Bampfylde give a vivid account of the battle that transpired:

“On the evening of the 31st, a rocket sent up from the Rajah Singha, the Rajah’s war prahu [canoe-like boat], announced the approach of the enemy. They came on boldly, and, perceiving the force at the entrance of the Kalaka [river], but not the more formidable one hidden by the long promontory separating the mouths of the two rivers, dashed on for the Saribas with defiant yells, to encounter in the growing darkness greater peril, and thus commenced the most famous fight in the annals of Sarawak, which brought a just retribution on these savage pirates and for ever broke their power, the battle of Beting Maru. Met with showers of grape, canister, rockets, and musketry from the Nemesis and the boats, and the savage onslaughts of the native levies mad for revenge, well led by the Rajah’s English and Malay officers, and with their retreat intercepted by the Rajah’s division, the pirates were soon thrown into confusion, and thought only of escape. But cut off in all directions, for five hours, in bright moonlight, they had to sustain a series of encounters extending over a distance of ten miles. At midnight all was over.” (Baring-Gould & Bampfylde 1909:136)

Dana Bayang escaped unharmed, though all was lost, including the captives, spoils and head trophies of the northern raid, as confirmed by Pringle’s account: “No important Saribas leaders perished in the battle, and it seems likely that the Skrang people suffered far more heavily.” (Pringle 1970:83)

Whereas in the 1843 campaign by Brooke the Saribas Iban had fought a guerrilla war and suffered minor casualties, the ambush at Beting Maro was completely unexpected, and the Saribas was not prepared for the aftermath that followed. Pringle mentioned that “On the second day after the victory, the Rajah’s forces followed it up by later destroying the homes of the ‘pirates’ on the Saribas river. A short time later the headmen of 250 Saribas Iban longhouses and the representatives of all the Saribas Malays signed an agreement promising not to raid in future.” (Pringle 1970:83) This time, the surrender was unequivocal, and the Saribas Treaty of 1849 was sealed. (St. John, 1853:337-339) All written records mention that the Saribas Treaty names Dana Bayang as signing it.

Iban ethno-historian Benedict Sandin’s account of the battle at Beting Maro astonishingly omits any mention of Dana Bayang and is silent on who led the Saribas fleet. Sandin, the great-grandson of Linggir Mali Lebu, however, understandably does mention the heroic exploits of Linggir and his men in attacking the H.M.S. Nemesis but stops short of naming him as leader of the bala (war party). This only indigenous account (Sandin 1994:183-184), which has been relied upon by many modern historians, has influenced the writing of Iban history such that no written record exists of Dana Bayang being at Beting Maro at all. In English accounts that did not rely on Sandin, only two attempts are made to identify the leaders of the ‘pirates’ of the war fleet of 1849. Baring-Gould & Bampfylde wrote of “a large piratical bala, under the command of the Datu Patinggi of Saribas and the principal Malays,” (Baring-Gould & Bampfylde 1909:136) while Runciman seems to suggest that Laksamana Amir of Paku was also present and led the ‘pirates’, (Runciman 1960:94) though Pringle states that Sandin disagreed with Runciman. (Pringle 1970:81) Sandin also erroneously names Capt. Keppel when it was actually Capt. Farquhar who supported Brooke at Beting Maro. Nevertheless, Sandin seems to have let the cat out of the bag when he states that “Duri had only a short time before been raided by the Layar Dayaks under Orang Kaya Pemancha Dana Bayang of the Padeh,” (Sandin 1994:183) and later, contradicting himself, informed Pringle that “thwarted at Sarikei, [Linggir and his allies] proceeded down the coast, planning to raid the village of Duri on the Sadong, First Division, an area which they had already plundered only a few months previously.” (Pringle 1970:81) (Italics mine.) Sandin’s further assertion that Dana Bayang “never raided the Melanaus who lived at the Rejang delta and beyond” (Sandin 1994:166) as a consequence of having dreamt as a boy of a warning by Indu Dara Insin Temaga to only raid territories south-west of the Saribas is flawed. (Sandin 1966:96-102. In Sandin’s account, he mentions the mythic heroine Kumang as the protagonist of the dream, which contradicts Saribas history which names the goddess Indu Dara Insin Temaga instead.) It was precisely because Dana Bayang wanted to test the efficacy of his dream that he chose to raid north-east, and for the first time, was defeated. Dana Bayang’s name on the Saribas Treaty incontrovertibly confirms him as the chief leader of the forces that were ambushed at Beting Maro. James Brooke would not have sealed the treaty with anyone else other than the chief enemy who led the forces to attack him. Rentap is not mentioned at Beting Maro in any written records, oral accounts or documents, though it would have been plausible that he had joined Dana Bayang’s forces and led his men from the Skrang.

The British colonial administrator and naturalist Hugh Low describes Dana Bayang thus:

“All the tribes of Sarebas, though each has its particular chief, acknowledge in war the authority of the Orang Kaya Pa-mancha; but it does not appear that, excepting when his orders and instructions agree with their own wishes, the petty chiefs, who command their own boats and the people of their own villages, pay particular attention to them, but still they always look up to this old man - who has distinguished himself by his bravery - with respect, and his opinion possesses great weight in their councils, more particularly, as, from his sanguinary nature, and the long practised custom of taking heads, his store of which he is always anxious to increase, the counsels of peace are seldom those he offers to the nation.” (Low 1988:183)

Charles Johnson Brooke, in 1853, at that time the Tuan Muda, wrote:

“We reached the mouth of Saribus, up which we proceeded for forty miles…The principal object of our visit was to persuade the population of Malays and Dyaks to make peace with the Lingga tribe. In the course of the day, the Dyak Chief, the Orang Kaya Pamancha, came aboard, and having often heard his name as being one of the most trouble-some of head hunters, I was surprised in meeting a very old, decrepit, and mutilated man, dressed in the worst habiliment. He took a seat on the deck, and remained silently looking down. His eyesight was nearly gone; and when told that the white man had come to pay him a visit, and hoped that his news was good, his only answer - which he drawled out significantly - was, “Ragus” (very good). As for making peace, he said he was too old, but that he would send some of his younger chiefs as his representatives, after farming season. He then requested to be allowed to go for heads, as, he said, his wife had lately departed this life, and he was consequently in mourning, which he wanted to ‘open’. On this being denied, he turned sullenly round and left.” (Brooke, Charles 1866 [I]:24-25) (Italics mine.)

The following year, Dana Bayang died of smallpox at his home in Padeh.

Manipulasi Strategik Orientalis Terhadap Tarikh 1136 Bermulanya Islam Di Kedah

Oleh Prof. Solehah Yaacob

Naratif rasmi yang mendakwa gelar 'Kedah Darul Aman' hanya wujud selepas pengislaman Maharaja Derbar Raja pada tahun 1136 Masihi adalah ralat sejarah yang terbongkar melalui bukti numismatik. Penemuan mata wang Kedah bertarikh 118 Hijrah (736 M) yang sudah mengukir gelar 'Dar al-Aman' membuktikan bahawa identiti dan kedaulatan Islamik Kedah telah sedia bertapak seawal zaman Kekhalifahan Umayyah. Kedatangan Sheikh Abdullah Al-Qumairi pada tahun 1136 M bukannya membawa pengenalan baharu, melainkan satu proses tajdid (pemurnian) ke atas institusi kesultanan yang telah mempunyai akar Islamik beberapa abad lebih awal. Penemuan Batu Ibnu Sardan 213 H ini—apabila digabungkan dengan dirham Kedah 118 H—secara mutlak mematahkan andaian kolonial bahawa masyarakat Kedah Tua berada dalam keadaan "kegelapan" sebelum abad ke-12 M. Ia mengesahkan bahawa Kedah Tua telah pun menjadi pangkalan rangkaian global intelektual-maritim Islam pada era kemuncak Khilafah Abbasiyah.

Siapakah Ibnu Sardan? 

Ibnu Sardan merujuk kepada tokoh/keluarga daripada klan pedagang maritim dan ulama yang berpusat di Basra, Siraf, dan Oman (pelabuhan utama Khilafah Abbasiyah di Teluk Parsi) (Sulaiman al-Tajir & Abu Zayd al-Sirafi, 916 M). Pada abad ke-8 hingga ke-9 Masihi (era pemerintahan Khalifah Harun al-Rashid dan al-Ma'mun), kelompok ini menguasai laluan perdagangan laut jarak jauh (long-distance maritime trade route) yang dikenali sebagai Route to China / Silk Road of the Sea (Ibn Khordadbeh, 870 M). 

Dalam catatan teks pelayaran Arab purba (seperti karya Ibn Khordadbeh, 870 M dan Sulaiman al-Tajir, 916 M), pedagang-pedagang Arab-Parsi pada zaman tersebut bukan sekadar menjalankan aktiviti perniagaan komoditi seperti kayu gaharu, rempah, dan logam besi tetapi juga bertindak sebagai intelektual, ahli navigasi (nakhoda), dan da'i . Keluarga Ibnu Sardan mendirikan stesen persinggahan, zon perdagangan, dan pusat dakwah di Lembah Bujang, Kedah—sebuah pelabuhan entrepôt antarabangsa yang sangat strategik untuk mengisi bekalan air tawar, menunggu pertukaran angin monsun, serta berdagang komoditi besi dan emas Penemuan bukti material seperti Batu Ibnu Sardan bertarikh 213 H (828/829 M) mengesahkan peranan aktif kelompok ini di Lembah Bujang. Batu tersebut merupakan sebuah blok batu granit tempatan berukuran sekitar 19 cm x 37 cm yang dipahat dengan ukiran tulisan Arab/Jawi Kuno bergaya Kufi purba: "ابن سر دان ۲۱۳" (Ibnu Sardan 213). Penarikhan (213 H / 828–829 Masihi): Angka 213 Hijrah bertepatan dengan tahun 828–829 Masihi (semasa pemerintahan Khalifah Abbasiyah, Al-Ma'mun bin Harun Al-Rashid). Ini menjadikannya antara bukti tulisan Arab/Jawi dan penarikhan Islamiah bertulis paling tua yang pernah ditemui di Asia Tenggara. Kebiasaannya, tafsiran fungsi batu bersurat/batu nisan/penanda maqam ditafsirkan sebagai batu nisan bagi menandakan tempat semayam/kematian tokoh penting daripada keluarga Ibnu Sardan yang meninggal dunia semasa berada di Kedah Tua atau sebagai batu asas stesen dagang/wakaf: dijadikan batu penanda tapak (foundation stone) bagi menandakan zon atau bangunan pertapak dagang/madrasah yang diasaskan oleh dinasti Ibnu Sardan di Lembah Bujang.

Tindakan orientalis seperti Stamford Raffles dan R.O. Winstedt yang melabelkan Hikayat Merong Mahawangsa sebagai karya mitos mencerminkan manifestasi intervensi dan campur tangan kolonial secara nyata ke atas teks berkenaan:

Meskipun tarikh 1136 Masihi (531 Hijrah) diiktiraf sebagai tarikh pengislaman rasmi institusi beraja Kedah dalam Hikayat Merong Mahawangsa (Mahayudin Haji Yahaya, 2001), sarjana kolonial British seperti Sir Thomas Stamford Raffles, R.J. Wilkinson, dan R.O. Winstedt menggunakan strategi historiografi yang selektif untuk mengurangkan nilai sejarah peribumi (Coedès, 1968; Winstedt, 1935). Antaranya: 

1)Mengecilkan Kebolehpercayaan Hikayat Merong Mahawangsa (HMM): Stamford Raffles yang mengumpul manuskrip HMM, bersama R.O. Winstedt, secara konsisten melabelkan HMM sebagai "karya rekaan dan dongeng" yang tidak boleh dipercayai secara akademik (Winstedt, 1935). Mesej tersirat orientalis ini adalah untuk menegaskan bahawa sejarah yang ditulis oleh peribumi Melayu tidak berasaskan kaedah empirikal dan penuh dengan mitos (Coedès, 1968; Winstedt, 1935). 

2)Mematikan Kronologi Islam Lebih Awal: Dengan mempropagandakan bahawa Islam hanya bermula di Kedah pada tahun 1136 Masihi, orientalis secara sengaja mengkategorikan penemuan material abad ke-8 dan ke-9 Masihi—seperti Dirham Kedah 118 H (736 M) dan Batu Ibnu Sardan 213 H (828 M)—sebagai sekadar "artifak pelawat atau pedagang asing yang terpencil" (isolated foreign artifacts). 3)Mengekalkan Mitos Indianization: Tujuan utama melambat-lambatkan garisan masa pengislaman Kedah adalah untuk mengukuhkan Teori Greater India (Coedès, 1968). Dengan menafikan kedaulatan Islamik Kedah pada abad ke-8 dan ke-9 Masihi, mereka dapat terus mempromosikan naratif bahawa seluruh Semenanjung Tanah Melayu berada di bawah pengaruh kebudayaan Hindu-Buddha dari India sehingga abad yang lewat (Coedès, 1968; Winstedt, 1935).

Intervensi Historiografi dan Dekonstruksi Teks:

Dalam disiplin dekolonisasi sejarah, tindakan Raffles dan pentadbir kolonial disifatkan sebagai intervensi historiografi (historiographical intervention). Semasa penyalinan dan penyuntingan manuskrip Melayu, sarjana British kerap memasukkan nota kaki (footnote bias) atau memilih variasi teks tertentu untuk memisahkan kronologi Islam 1136 Masihi daripada penemuan arkeologi fizikal—seperti industri peleburan besi Sungai Batu (788 SM) dan sistem navigasi Lembah Bujang. Penetapan tahun 1136 Masihi (531 H) sebagai titik mula Islam di Kedah oleh siri teks kolonial merupakan satu bentuk reduksionisme historiografi (Mahayudin Haji Yahaya, 2001; Winstedt, 1935). Tindakan orientalis seperti Stamford Raffles dan R.O. Winstedt melabelkan Hikayat Merong Mahawangsa sebagai karya mitos membuktikan wujudnya intervensi serta campur tangan kolonial secara sengaja ke atas historiografi HMM, di samping mengabaikan bukti numismatik Dirham Kedah 118 H (736 M) serta Batu Ibnu Sardan 213 H (828 M), adalah percubaan nyata untuk melambatkan kronologi Islamisasi. Hakikatnya, tahun 1136 Masihi hanyalah fasa tajdid dan pengisytiharan rasmi institusi kesultanan, manakala hakikat kedaulatan Islamik Kedah telah sedia bertapak beberapa abad lebih awal.

C&P

2 Ogos 2026: 9.26 mlm

OLD PHOTO: ROYAL MALAYSIAN NAVY (2)

1980 : the largest military base of the Royal Malaysian Navy. Built in Phases throughout the 1970's, construction completed in early 1980. On September 9, 1984, Lumut Officially replaced the Woolandss as the RMN's main headquarters.

LUMUT NAVAL BASE, LUMUT, PERAK

Refer: Notebook: History of Lumut Naval Base & Intake 139 (1980)

26 JUNE 1980: The very first group of young recruits from intake 139/80 to complete their training at the Newly Lumut Naval Base following the RMN's transition from the Woodlands base in Singapore. The cohort officially commenced their training on 14 January 1980 and celebrated their passing out for the first time in Lumut on 26 June 1980. 

Refer: Zulheimy Maamor Blog : 1980: TLDM intake 139 & Pengkalan TLDM Lumut Perak. 

On 1 July 1980, the Royal Malaysian Navy welcomed its very first intake of 14 female officer cadets. This historic pioneer batch began their military training at the officer School, KD Pelandok, Lumut, Perak. 

1980: OPS TUGU - critical military operation executed by the Royal Malaysian Navy and the Royal Army Engineers (RAJD). The mission's goal was to construct sovereignty monuments on several reefs within Spratly Islands to solidify Malaysia's Maritime Territorial claims. Among the reer were Commodore Reef, Swallow Reef, Terumbu Semarang Barat Kecil, Terumbu Mantanani, Terumbu Ubin etc....

1982: WOODLANDS NAVAL BASE

Photo taken in 1982 when I was serving at the FOCRMNCCS , Woodland Naval Base. Also known as KD Malaya, was a prominent naval base located off Admiralty Road West in Woodlands, Singapore. 

Established by the British in 1952, the base served as the home and HQ of the Malayan Naval Force (later Royal Malaysian Navy). 

Following Singapore's independence from Malaysia in 1965, the base uniquely remained under Malaysian operation. It hosted the main fleet until 1979 and officially operated as the naval headquarters until September 1984, when the command moved to Lumut, Perak. 

However, the base was used as recruit training facility from 1984 until 1997, when the site was officially transferred to Singapore. 

The Singapore government utilised the site as the Admiralty West Prison from 2000 - 2018 after which most of the structures were demolished in 2021 for regional redevelopment.

8 January 1984: The sinking of the RMN patrol craft, KD Sri Perak, in South China Sea. The ship capsized near Midai Island after battling severe storms and towering waves while sailing in a convoy with KD Hang Tuah and KD Sri Trengganu toward Labuan.Out of 29 crew member onboard, 26 survivors were rescued by a passing merchant ship after drifting for 72 hours in an overload liferaft. Sadly, 3 navy personnel lost their lives and were swept away by currents. 

Notably, the former Chief of Navy, Admiral Tan Sri Abdul Rahman Ayob, was a senior Cadet Officer on board during the incident and survived. The bodies of the 3 lost crew members were never recovered. 

11 DECEMBER 1985:  The image captures the historic first crew and Project Team of the RMN Lerici-Class Mine Countermeasures Vessels (MCMVs). 4 MCMV ships built here are KD Mahamiru (M26), KD Jerai (M27), KD Ledang (M28) and KD Kinabalu (M14), built by Intermarine SpA.

Hj Zulheimy Maamor

2 August 2026: 9.09 p.m

OLD PHOTO : ROYAL MALAYSIAN NAVY (1)

 

HMS Malaya,  a Queen Elizabeth-class battleship of the British Royal Navy. Commissioned in 1916, its construction coasts were funded entirely by the Federated Malay States. It served prominently in both World Wars, including the notable Battle of Jutland. 

The main watch bell from the ship, featuring the "1916" inscription is currently preserved at the National Hydrographic Centre at Pulau Indah Naval Base in Selangor, Malaysia. 

The Straits Settlements Royal Naval Volunteer Reserve (SSRNVR) was officially formed on 27 April 1934 under the Colonial Naval Defence Act of 1931. It was created by the British Colonial administration to aid the Royal Navy in defending Singapore and the strategic shipping routes around the Malay Peninsula. 

Ref: Wikipedia: Royal Malaysian Navy

Photo of Malay Navy during World War II : Malay Navy in World War II

On April 8, 1949, Singapore Governor Sir Franklin Gimson accepted HMS Pelandok as the first vessel of the Malayan Naval Force. Originally a British Royal Navy Landing Craft Tank (LCT 341), it was converted for coastal patrols during the Malayan Emergency and renamed HMS Sri Perlis in 11.9.1958.

Zu

8 October 1951 - the State Funeral of British High Commissioner Sir Henry Gurney, following his assassination by the Communist insurgent on 6 October 1951 at Fraser Hill. 

The cortege passed by the Sultan Abdul Samad Building, with sailors from the Royal Malayan Navy forming part of the parade. Sir Henry Gurney was laid rest at the Cheras Christian Cemetery. 

1951: Kit Master, a British officer inspecting members of the Malayan Naval Force during a kit inspection in October 1951. Typical items on display include Uniform and apparel, Field Gear & utility and specialised tools that was issued to them. 

13 May 1953 : Admiral Sir Charles Lambe, Commander-in-Chief of the Far East Fleet, inspecting a parade line of personnel from the Royal Malayan navy at Woodlands Naval Base. 

20 November 1953: Rear Admiral A.F. Pugsley, Flag Officer, Malayan Area (1951-1953), giving a farewell address and presenting awards at the Woodlands Naval Base in Singapore. He was honoring officers and men of the Royal Malayan Navy with General Service Medals for anti-bandit operations. 

In this pivotal command role, he oversaw British and Commonwealth Naval Operations aimed at countering the communist insurgency led by the Malayan National Liberation Army (MNLA). 

23 November 1954 : Governor of Singapore, Sir John Nicoll, conducting an annual inspection of the Malayan Royal Naval Volunteer Reserve at the Telok Ayer Basin Base in Singapore.

Telok Ayer Basin served as an operational base for naval forces during the 1950's. It acted as a crucial station for coastal for Coastal patrol vessels and was the principal base of the Singapore Division of the MRNVR. 

However, today this naval base in no longer operative. The entire basin was filled in during late-20th century land reclamation. Today the skyscrapers of Singapore's Central Business District (CDB) and Marina Bay occupy the former naval base's location. 

28 December 1955: Nine Royal Malayan Navy cadets departed from Singapore to undergo officer training at the Royal Naval College at Darmouth, U.K. Among the pioneer's are Tan Sri K.Thanabalasingam (the first Malaysian Chief of the Navy), Dato' Mohd Zain Mohd Salleh, Captain Cheah Leong Voon and others. 

This historic photo show a group of Royal Malayan Navy personnel on a 1956 Sea Training cruise to South Korea aboard the British Royal Navy Frigage HMS Alert. 

The image captures Tunku Abdul Rahman visiting the Royal Malayan Navy (RMN) Harbour Defence Motor Launch (HDML) / Seaward Defence Motor Launch (SDML) No. 3509 at the naval barracks in Woodlands, Singapore, on September 7, 1956. This historic vessel was notably the very first boat transferred to and manned by the Malayan Naval Force in September 1949.

1957: Singapore Women's Auxiliary Naval Service was established in 1957, as part of the Singapore Division of the Malayan Royal Naval Volunteer Reserve back in 1957.

Known affectionately as the "SWAN Sisters", members underwent rigorous training, including sea training.

15 May 1957 : The first Chief of Navy of the Royal Malayan Navy was Commodore Edward Dudley Norman. He served as the head of the navy until 7 February 1960. 

31 August 1957: three Royal Malayan Navy personnel who officially hoisted the flag of the Federation of Malaya for the first time during the Merdeka Day proclamation. The image identifies the 3 historical figures as Chief Yeoman Awang Salleh (left), ABRO Sharif Kalam (Middle) and LTO Oliver Cuthbert Samuel (right). 

1958 : Chief Melan Suradi (800003) (retired as Lieutenant RMN), alongside his former shipmates from his time serving as a Petty Officer onboard HMMS Sri Pahang. 

31 August 1958: the first anniversary of the Merdeka Day parade.

20 May 1961 : KD Mutiara became the first Royal Malayan Navy vessel to officially received and use the prefix "K.D" (Kapal DiRaja) replacing the British "HMS" (Her Majesty's Ship) designation. The ceremony was presided over by the Yang Di-Pertuan Agong at Kuala Klang. 

January 1962 : Commander Charles Thong Yin Sin, seated on the far lest, took command of the vessel KD Temasek, a former Ham-Class inshore minesweeper (Originally HMS Brantingham). Commander Charles Thong's pioneering as one of the first Malayan Officers in the RMN. 

24 October 1963 :  KD Ledang, a Ton-class coastal minesweeper was commissioned into the Royal Malaysian Navy. Originally the British Minesweeper HMS Hexton. 

In July 1981, KD Ledang was sunk in the South China Sea by a direct hit from an Exocet MM38 anti-ship missile fired by KD Ganas. I was onboard KD Ganas during the firing of the Missile. 

12 November 1963 : KD Sri Kelantan (P3142) was officially commissioned into the Royal Malaysian Navy at the HMS Dolphin Naval Base in Portsmouth, U.K. The ship was commanded by Lieutenant K. Thanabalasingam,  Later Rear Admiral (Rtd) Tan Sri Dato' Seri K.Thanabalasingam, the first Malaysian to be appointed as the Chief of the Navy from 1968 to 1976. 

24 July 1964: The KD Sri Selangor incident occured at St.John's Island in the Singapore Straits during the Malaysian-Indonesian Confrontation. The RMN Patrol Craft engage in a fierce firefight after encountering an armed boat of five Indonesian KKO commandos. The infiltration was successfully countered, resulting in the death of ODET Abdul Samad bin Suliman,alongside injuries to two other Malaysian crew members. 

Abdul Samad Firing Range at the Lumut Naval Base is named in honor of Abdul Samad. 

1964: The first crew of KD Hang Tuah (F433)at United Kingdom. My cousin, Abdul Jalal Othman were among many young sailors sents to Portsmouth to man and bring the flagship back to Malaysian waters. 

1966 / 1971 : MALAYSIAN BASE JETTY

The old photo of the Malaysian Base Jetty in Woodlands, Singapore in 1966 (top) and 1971 (below). It was an essential maritime hub for the Royal Malaysian Navy before moving to Lumut, Perak in the 80's. 

The 400-meter long concrete jetty was officially opened by Tun Abdul Razak, the then Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Defence on 12 May 1966 .

The RMN fleet maintained its main operational base here until the fleet relocated to Lumut, Perak, between 1979 and 1984. The facility then served as a training base until it was officially transferred back to Singapore in December 1997.

Today, the refurbished area forms the core of Woodlands Waterfronts Park. 

1968: Saiful Bahri composed and wrote the lyrics for Samudera Raya, which officially became the anthem of the Royal Malaysian Navy. While Jamaludin Alias was indeed the legendary singer who performed the original vocal recording of Samudera Raya. 

1972 :  Tun Abdul Razak, second Prime Minister of Malaysia, is seen here officiating and touring the Royal Malaysian Navy's newly commissioned frigate, KD Rahmat, in 1972. The ship, originally named KD Hang Jebat was the first major purpose-built warship and missile-equipped vessel in the Malaysian fleet. 

1978: The image show what is widely recognised as the Passing Out Parade of the first intake of women recruits (Laskarnita) in the Royal Malaysian Navy, held in 1978 at the Woodlands Wing of KD Pelandok, Singapore.At that time, the RMN's principal recruit training establishment was still based in Woodlands. KD Pelandok only relocated to Lumut in Perak on 1 November 1979. 

28 MARCH 1978 : KD Sri Rejang officially commissioned, it originally started operations in 1964 as a temporary local naval office in Sibu, Sarawak, before being upgraded and eventually relocated to Sungai Antu. 

KD Sri Rejang served as the only RMN forward riverine base dedicated to counter-insurgency operation in inland waterways, against the North Kalimantan Communist Party. It operated under the Rajang Area Security Command (RASCOM). 

Reference:

1. My Note Book : Brown Water Navy - KD Sri Rejang (1983/84)
2. Overview : What is Brown Water Navy?
3. Zulheimy Maamor: RASCOM HQ Mil - Ops Jala Aman 1, Sibu, Sarawak (1983/84).
4. Zulheimy Maamor: KD Sri Rejang - Memoir seorang Veteran.

Hj Zulheimy Maamor

30 July 2026: 5.48 p.m