Bukti bahawa Hang Tuah wujud bukan mitos

KREDIT: DENAI HATI

POLEMIK kewujudan Hang Tuah bukanlah perkara baharu, malah hampir setiap tahun ada pihak mempertikaikan kesahihan kisah pahlawan Melayu terbilang itu, disamping tidak kurang juga mempertahankannya.

Hang Tuah adalah pahlawan yang hidup pada zaman Kesultanan Melayu Melaka dan dilantik sebagai Laksamana sejak pemerintahan Sultan Mansur Shah hingga Sultan Mahmud Shah.

Bagaimanapun, kerana kekurangan bukti kukuh mengenai Hang Tuah, menyebabkan pelbagai teori dilemparkan, sama ada benar atau tidak kewujudannya, hingga ada sekurang-kurangnya 10 versi berbeza mengenai kisah pahlawan itu.

Logik di sebalik dakwaan kewujudan Hang Tuah, tambah diragui kerana sebarang bukti yang dikaitkan mengenai kehidupannya hanya bersandarkan hujah serta cerita mulut turun-temurun yang tidak konkrit dan nyata.

Hujah mengenai kewujudan Hang Tuah selama ini adalah bersandarkan daripada beberapa nukilan tempatan, antaranya Hikayat Hang Tuah dan Sulalatus Salatin (Sejarah Melayu).

Namun, penemuan dua penyelidik Universiti Putra Malaysia (UPM) baru-baru ini membuka lembaran baharu apabila buat pertama kalinya pembuktian kewujudan Hang Tuah dilakukan secara kajian empirikal termasuk menggunakan sumber dan artifak asing.

Sumber dan artifak itu ialah dokumen rasmi Empayar Ryukyu (kini Okinawa), Jepun dalam bahasa China, ‘Rekidai Hoan’, catatan peribadi penakluk Melaka, Alfonso de Albuquerque, yang ditulis antara tahun 1510 hingga 1511.

Selain itu, Dokumen Ming Shi, iaitu Sejarah Dinasti Ming ditulis bermula tahun 1403 oleh Maharaja Ming, Cheng Zu yang mengandungi perutusan ke Alam Melayu serta dokumen hasil tulisan Xin Fei, iaitu pencatat rasmi Laksamana Zeng He (Cheng Ho).

Penyelidikan dua Pensyarah Kanan Fakulti Bahasa Moden dan Komunikasi UPM, Profesor Emeritus Dr Hashim Musa dan Dr Rohaidah Kamaruddin itu berjaya mengesahkan tahun kelahiran Hang Tuah iaitu pada 1431.

Turut disahkan ialah jejak terakhirnya yang didokumentasikan iaitu di Temasik (kini Singapura) pada tahun 1511 ketika berusia 80 tahun. Hang Tuah pernah menjejakkan kaki ke Ryukyu pada tahun 1480 dan 1481, selain penemuan sebilah keris luk sembilan di Okinawa yang dikatakan dibawa sendiri oleh Hang Tuah ke Jepun.

Lebih banyak penemuan dan bukti akan didedahkan Hashim dan Rohaidah dan ia sekali gus akan terus membuktikan kewujudan Hang Tuah melalui fakta sejarah serta sumber yang berwibawa.

Dokumen Empayar Ryukyu, ‘Rekidai Hoan’

1. Mencatatkan hubungan Kerajaan Ryukyu dengan Korea dan kepulauan Asia Tenggara antara tahun 1424-1867.
2. Mengandungi 19 surat daripada Kerajaan Ryukyu dan 11 surat daripada Kesultanan Melayu Melaka.
3. Tiga surat ditulis sendiri oleh Hang Tuah bagi pihak Sultan Melaka.
4. Hang Tuah berusia 50 tahun ketika surat ke Ryukyu ditulis pada tahun 1480.
5. Memperincikan hadiah yang dibawa Hang Tuah, antaranya keris luk sembilan yang ditemui di Kuil Diraja Engakuji, Okinawa.

Catatan Peribadi Alfonso de Albuquerque

1. Ditulis ketika pelayar itu menakluk Goa, India (1510) dan Melaka (1511).
2. Catatan dalam bahasa Portugis itu diterbitkan dalam bentuk buku bertajuk The Commentaries of the Great Alfonso Dalboquerque pada tahun 1557.
3. Hang Tuah yang digelar Laksamana disebut pada halaman 83, 89, 90, 395.
4. Menceritakan carta salasilah Kesultanan Melayu Melaka membabitkan Hang Tuah sebagai mentua kepada Sultan Mansur Shah dan datuk kepada Sultan Alauddin Riayat Shah.
5. Menyatakan Laksamana Hang Tuah masih hidup pada tahun 1511, berusia 80 tahun dan bermukim di Singapura selepas kejatuhan Melaka, selain menyifatkannya sebagai masyhur, perwira handal dan berpengetahuan.

Dokumen Ming Shi dan Catatan Xin Fei

1. Dokumen Ming Shi ditulis mulai bermula tahun 1403 oleh Maharaja Ming, Cheng Zu, yang mengandungi perutusan ke Alam Melayu.
2. Membuktikan kewujudan hubungan kerajaan Kesultanan Melayu Melaka dengan Dinasti Ming sebelum kelahiran Hang Tuah.
3. Catatan Xin Fei mengenai pelayaran Laksamana Zheng He (Cheng Ho) pada abad ke-15, antaranya ke Melaka pada 1405.
4. Membuktikan kedatangan terakhir Laksamana Zheng He ke Melaka pada tahun 1430, setahun sebelum kelahiran Hang Tuah.

Garis masa hayat Hang Tuah

1431-1444

Tahun kelahiran sehingga berusia 13 tahun / zaman kanak-kanak

Pemerintahan Sultan Muhammad Shah (1424-1444)

1444-1459

Berusia 13 tahun hingga 25 tahun / zaman remaja

Pemerintahan Sultan Muzaffar Shah (1446-1456)

1459-1477

Berusia 25 tahun hingga 46 tahun / zaman dewasa

Pemerintahan Sultan Mansur Shah (1456-1477)

1477-1488

Berusia 46 tahun hingga 57 tahun – zaman pertengahan

Pemerintahan Sultan Alauddin Riayat Shah (1477-1488)

1488-1511

Berusia 57 tahun hingga 80 tahun – zaman tua

Pemerintahan Sultan Mahmud Shah (1488-1511)

Keris luk sembilan

1. Ditemui di pekarangan Kuil Diraja Engakuji, Okinawa pada tahun 2002 tanpa hulu dan sarung.
2. Hadiah kerajaan Kesultanan Melayu Melaka kepada Kerajaan Ryukyu, yang tercatat dalam surat dibawa Hang Tuah.
3. Bilah keris sepanjang 22.1 sentimeter (hampir sembilan inci).
4. Dipercayai diperbuat daripada meteor kerana kajian saintis Jepun mendapati bilahnya tidak sepadan dengan mana-mana elemen di bumi.
5. Dipercayai berukuran lebih satu kaki jika diukur dengan hulunya.
6. Luk sembilan pada keris menandakan ia sebagai peralatan majlis rasmi, bukan untuk berjuang.
7. Ahli sejarah dari University of The Ryukyus, percaya keris itu berasal daripada Melaka, berdasarkan hubungan diplomatik kedua-dua kerajaan yang terjalin pada abad ke-15.

Banyak lagi kisah Sejarah Melayu @ Kisah Sejarah Melayu

Biodata denaihati

Founder Denaihati.com since 2009

Copy and paste:

31 Januari 2022 > 28 Jamadilakhir 1443H: 4.50 pm

Prasasti Sebagai Bukti Sejarah

KREDIT > DARUL MUTTAQIN

Raja-raja Melayu sama ada dari Sumatera atau di tanah besar Asia (Indochina dan semenanjung) mempunyai standard tersendiri dalam mengabadikan kerajaan mereka.Mereka pasti memahatkan kewujudan kerajaan mereka dalam bahasa Melayu Kuno.Inilah kepentingan prasasti.Kamu anak-anak Melayu semua wajib kenal semua prasasti-prasasti ini.Prasasti ni sebagai 'senjata' untuk menangkis apa jua pembohongan sejarah.Nenek moyang telah bersusah payah mengabadikan bahasa dan sejarah bangsa pada batu bersurat;seakan kapsul masa pada hari ini.

Malahan nama 'Malayu' itu jelas terpahat dalam prasasti,rekod dan manuskrip.Inilah kepentingan prasasti.Setakat ini setahu saya ada dua prasasti di Asia Tenggara yang terpahat amat jelas ejaan 'Malayu' itu.

Pertama Prasasti Tembaga Jaya Singa Himat keluaran sekitar abad ke 10-13 Masehi,berbahasa Melayu Kuno dari Palembang.

Kedua Prasasti Hanchey berusia abad ke-6 Masehi di Kemboja yang bertulisan Khmer dalam bahasa Khmer Kuno campur Sanskrit.

Manakala di dalam manuskrip,jumlahnya amat banyak.Tidak termasuk pelbagai variasi sebutan mengikut dinasti di China dan sebutan rekod Tamil,Sinhala,Pali dan Sanskrit.Dalam rekod Jawa lagilah banyak.

Dalam kakawin-kakawin era Majapahit memang tercatat kata 'bhumimalayu' dan 'malayupura'. Dalam rekod Thai terutama era Ayutthaya pun ada,tambahan pula bahasa Melayu antara bahasa pengantara dalam istana Ayutthaya.

Ini saya ambil dari tesis oleh Davisakd Puaksom untuk Doktor Falsafahnya di Universiti Nasional Singapura.Beliau telah menemui banyak bukti mengejutkan tentang pengaruh bahasa Melayu sebagai lingua franca di dalam istana Ayutthaya.

Kesimpulannya,melalui prasasti,manuskrip dan rekod,kita mampu tersenyum megah dan hanya melihat gelagat para pembohong sejarah terkinja-kinja di hadapan kita.Modal mereka air liur dan cerita fantasi mereka.Kita ada prasasti,rekod dan manuskrip.Hanya orang gila sahaja yang menafikan kepentingan prasasti dan manuskrip.Tamadun yang malas menulis dan mencatat adalah tamadun orang gua dan monyet-monyet.

Kita punya tamadun yang menulis dan mencatat. Kita setaraf tamadun Sumeria,Mesir Purba,China dan Lembah Indus.Semua tamadun itu meninggalkan bukti-bukti berupa rekod tulisan dan bahasa. Seluruh sarjana linguistik dan morfologi mengiktiraf prasasti-prasasti berbahasa Melayu Kuno kita. Dahulu kita penguasa seluruh Asia Tenggara. Bahawa dahulu kita punya empayar yang agung. Kita pribumi Asia Tenggara.Di sini tempat tumpah darah kita!

Saya membawakan beberapa kajian kes adalah untuk melatih anda supaya menggunakan semua bahan bertulis yang diusahakan oleh nenek moyang kita bagi menentang pembohongan sejarah.Ini semua ibarat senjata paling ampuh.Jika anda pandai menggunakannya anda akan jadi seperti saya.Semangat sesetengah orang dalam menaikkan prestij sukukaum mereka walaupun mereka tahu kaum mereka tidak punya apa-apa bukti,adalah sesuatu yang patut diinsafi oleh anak-anak Melayu.Kamu semua ada bukti yang kukuh,apa lagi,gunakan!!

Matari Singa Jaya Himat, Prasasti Tembaga Panjang dari Palembang

"lamun batinah Putari Kambang Murna namanya,

lamun lanangn Matari Singa Jaya Himat namanya.Lama

lama baranak lanang; Matari Singa Jaya

Mat, dari ratu, lami lami bangsa Malayu..."

Prasasti ini amat berbeza dengan prasasti-prasasti lainnya (Kedukan Bukit, Talang Tuwo, Kota Kapur) yang bertuliskan aksara Pallawa atau Kawi,prasasti dari Palembang ini menggunakan aksara Rencong,tulisan purba Melayu.Di perbuat dari tembaga dan terdiri dari bait-bait seakan puisi yang amat panjang,usianya tidak dapat ditafsir dengan jelas.Pendapat semasa mengatakan ia diukir ketika era awal Majapahit.Dan prasasti ini telah mengungkapkan dengan megah nama satu bangsa;BANGSA MALAYU...dengan teramat-amatlah jelasnya dan tiada satu pun prasasti purba yang mengungkapkan nama bangsa atau kaum sepertimana bangsa Melayu sebagai contoh bangsa 'Siam Merong'.Tiada prasasti mengungkapkan nama 'Siam','Jawa','Bugis' atau 'Sulu' dengan megah dalam satu prasasti...bukan semata-mata batu sahaja tetapi prasasti tembaga!Saya pasti leluhur kita dahulu ada mengukirnya di kepingan emas,namun sudah pasti hilang akibat dirampas ketika peperangan dan sebagainya.

Bagaimana dengan anggapan sesetengah orang yang tidak berpelajaran yang mengatakan nama 'Melayu' dari perkataan Jawa atau ciptaan British?Mahu sahaja saya mencampakkan kepingan tembaga Prasasti Matari Singa Jaya Himat ke muka-muka petualang bangsa ini.

Oleh Iskandar (1996: 23), prasasti yang ditemukan di Palembang ini disebut Prasasti Pun Matari Singa Jaya Himat, berdasarkan “tokoh utama” yang tertera pada prasasti, atau Prasasti Palembang. Ia menyebutkan bahwa prasasti ini sezaman dengan Majapahit, sekitar abad ke-13 hingga ke-15, dan merupakan kelanjutan tradisi Sriwijaya (aksara Rencong pun dinilai merupakan perkembangan aksara Pallawa dengan pengaruh aksara Jawa, dan masih digunakan hingga awal abad ke-20). Bahasanya dianggap sebagai Melayu Kuno.

Prasasti ini telah diberi transkripsi dan terjemahannya dalam Koninklijk Koloniaal Instituut Amsterdam, Mededeelingen XXIX, Afdeeling Volkenkunde, no. 4, Aaneinsten 1931-32. Selanjutnya, C. Hooykaas pun menerbitkannya dalam Perinstis Sastera, 1951.

sumber: https://www.facebook.com/notes/srikandi

Copy and paste:

31 Januari 2022 > 28 Jamadilakhir 1443H: 4.35 pm

ETYMOLOGY > "MELAYU"

CREDIT: THE MALAY ADVENTURER

By: Wan Fahmi

The ethnonym “Melayu” to refer to a distinct ethnic group is believed to have been popularized during the consolidation of the Melaka Sultanate as a regional power in the 15th century. It was used to describe the cultural preferences of the Melakans as against foreigners from the same region, notably the Javanese and Thais. Prior to the 15th century, the term and its other spelling variants can be found in various foreign and local sources referring to either historical kingdoms or geographical parts of Malay archipelago.

Malayadvipa – appeared in chapter 48, Vayu Purana. It literally means “mountain-insular continent” and described as one of the provinces in the mythical eastern archipelago that was full of gold and silver. Some scholars equate the term with Sumatra, but several Indian scholars believe the term should refer to the more mountainous Malay peninsula, while Sumatra is more correctly associated with Suvarnadvipa.

Maleu-kolon – appeared in Ptolemy’s work, Geographia. It is believed to have originated from the Sanskrit term malayakolam or malaikurram, referring to a geographical part of Malay Peninsular.

Mo-Lo-Yu – mentioned by Yijing, a Tang Dynasty Chinese Buddhist monk who visited the Malay Archipelago between 688–695. The Melayu Kingdom existed in Jambi between the 4th and 13th century. The Mo-Lo-Yu kingdom was located in a distance of 15 day sail from Bogha (Palembang), the capital of Sribhoga (Srivijaya). It took a 15 day sail as well to reach Ka-Cha (Kedah) from Mo-lo-yu; therefore, it can be reasoned that Mo-Lo-Yu would lie halfway between the two places. A popular theory relates Mo-Lo-Yu with the Jambi in Sumatra, however the geographical location of Jambi contradict with Yi Jing’s description of a “half way sail between Ka-Cha (Kedah) and Bogha (Palembang)”. 

In the later Yuan Dynasty (1271–1368) and Ming Dynasty (1368–1644), the word Ma-La-Yu was mentioned often in Chinese historical texts – with changes in spelling due to the time span between the dynasties – to refer to a nation near the southern sea. Among the terms used was “Bok-la-yu”, “Mok-la-yu” (木剌由), Ma-li-yu-er (麻里予兒), Oo-lai-yu (巫来由) – traced from the written source of monk Xuan Zang), and Wu-lai-yu (無来由).

Malaiur – inscribed on the south wall of the Brihadeeswarar Temple. It was described as a kingdom that had “a strong mountain for its rampart” in Malay peninsula, that fell to the Chola invaders during Rajendra Chola I’s campaign in 11th century.

Bhūmi Mālayu – (literally “Land of Malayu”), a translation from Padang Roco Inscription dated 1286 CE by Slamet Muljana. The term is associated with Dharmasraya kingdom.

Ma-li-yu-er – mentioned in the chronicle of Yuan Dynasty, referring to a nation of Malay peninsula that faced the southward expansion of Sukhothai Kingdom, during the reign of Ram Khamhaeng. The chronicle stated: “..Animosity occurred between Siam and Ma-li-yu-er with both killing each other…”. In response to the Sukhothai’s action, a Chinese envoy arrived at the Ram Khamhaeng’s court in 1295 bearing an imperial order: “Keep your promise and do no evil to Ma-li-yu-er”.

Malauir – mentioned in Marco Polo’s account as a kingdom located in the Malay peninsula, possibly similar to the one mentioned in Yuan chronicle.

Malayapura – (literally “city of Malaya” or “kingdom of Malaya”), inscribed on the Amoghapasa inscription dated 1347 CE. The term was used by Adityawarman to refer to Dharmasraya.

Sungai Melayu – (literally “Melayu river”), mentioned in the Malay annals in referring to a river in Sumatra: “…Here now is the story of a city called Palembang in the land of Andelas. It was ruled by Demang Lebar Daun, a descendant of Raja Shulan, and its river was the Muara Tatang. In the upper reaches of the Muara Tatang was a river called Melayu, and on that river was a hill called Si-Guntang Mahameru…”.

Other logical explanations of the name origin has been verified in other languages, such as the Tamil word malaiyur, used to refer the mountainous region where the civilization of Kadaram was founded in Kedah (today), or the Javanese word mlayu (to run) derived from mlaku (to walk or to travel), or the Malay term melaju (to steadily accelerate), to refer the high mobility and migratory nature of its people, however these suggestions remain as popular local beliefs without corroborating evidence. 

During the European colonization of the area, the word “Malay” was adopted into English via the Dutch word “Malayo”, itself derived from the Portuguese malaio, which originates from – and has an uncannily similar pronunciation to – the Malay word “Melayu”.

Copy and paste: 31 January 2022 > 28 Jamadilakhir 1443H: 4.17 pm

ORIGIN OF MALAY PEOPLE

CREDIT: THE MALAY ADVENTURER

By Wan Fahmi

Proto-Malay models

Also known as Melayu asli (aboriginal Malays) or Melayu purba (ancient Malays), the Proto-Malays are of Austronesian origin and thought to have migrated to theMalay archipelago in a long series of migrations between 2500 and 1500 BC. The Encyclopedia of Malaysia: Early History, has pointed out a total of three theories of the origin of Malays:

The Yunnan theory, Mekong river migration (published in 1889) – The theory of Proto-Malays originating from Yunnan is supported by R.H Geldern, J.H.C Kern, J.R Foster, J.R Logen, Slamet Muljana and Asmah Haji Omar. Other evidences that support this theory include: stone tools found in Malay Archipelago are analogous to Central Asian tools, similarity of Malay customs and Assam customs.

The New Guinea theory (published in 1965) – The proto-Malays are believed to be seafarers knowledgeable in oceanography and possessing agricultural skills. They moved around from island to island in great distances between modern day New Zealand and Madagascar, and they served as navigation guides, crew and labour to Indian, Arab, Persian and Chinese traders for nearly 2000 years. Over the years they settled at various places and adopted various cultures and religions.

The Taiwan theory (published in 1997) – The migration of a certain group of Southern Chinese occurred 6,000 years ago, some moved to Taiwan (today’sTaiwanese aborigines are their descendents), then to the Philippines and later to Borneo (roughly 4,500 years ago) (today’s Dayak and other groups). These ancient people also split with some heading to Sulawesi and others progressing into Java, and Sumatra, all of which now speaks languages that belongs to the Austronesian Language family. The final migration was to the Malay Peninsula roughly 3,000 years ago. A sub-group from Borneo moved to Champa in modern-day Central and South Vietnam roughly 4,500 years ago. There are also traces of the Dong Son and Hoabinhian migration from Vietnam and Cambodia. All these groups share DNA and linguistic origins traceable to the island that is today Taiwan, and the ancestors of these ancient people are traceable to southern China.

Deutero-Malays

The earlier Proto-Malay groups were later pushed inland by so-called “Deutero-Malay” settlers in the second wave of migration around 300 BC. The Deutero-Malays are Iron Age people descended partly from the subsequent Austronesian peoples who came equipped with more advanced farming techniques and new knowledge of metals.They are kindred but more Mongolized and greatly distinguished from the Proto-Malays which have shorter stature, darker skin, slightly higher frequency of wavy hair, much higher percentage of dolichocephaly and a markedly lower frequency of the epicanthic fold. 

The Deutero-Malay settlers were not nomadic compared to their predecessors, instead they settled and established kampungs which serve as the main units in the society. These kampungs were normally situated on the riverbanks or coastal areas and generally self-sufficient in food and other necessities. By the end of the last century BC, these kampungs beginning to engage in some trade with the outside world. The Deutero-Malays are considered the direct ancestors of present-day Malay people. Their series of migration had indirectly forced some groups of Proto-Malays and aboriginal people to retreat into the hill areas of the interior further upriver, while many of the historical tribes were also completely assimilated under the influence of Malayisation, contributing to the genetic pool of the modern ethnic Malays. Notable Proto-Malays of today are Moken, Jakun, Orang Kuala, Temuan and Orang Kanaq.

Expansion from Sundaland model

A more recent theory holds that rather than being populated by expansion from the mainland, the Ice Age populations of the Malay peninsula, neighboring Indonesian archipelago, and the then-exposed continental shelf (Sundaland) instead developed locally from the first human settlers and expanded to the mainland. Proponents of this theory hold that this expansion gives a far more parsimonious explanation of the linguistic, archaeological, and anthropological evidence than earlier models, particularly the Taiwan model. This theory also draws support from recent genetic evidence by Human Genome Organisation suggesting that the primary peopling of Asia occurred in a single migration through Southeast Asia; this route is held to be the modern Malay area and that the diversity in the area developed mainly in-place without requiring major migrations from the mainland. The expansion itself may have been driven by rising sea levels at the end of the Ice Age.

Proponent Stephen Oppenheimer has further theorized that the expansion of peoples occurred in three rapid surges due to rising sea levels at the end of the Ice Age, and that this diaspora spread the peoples and their associated cultures, myths, and technologies not just to mainland Southeast Asia, but as far as India, the Near East, and the Mediterranean. Reviewers have found his proposals for the original settlement and dispersal worthy of further study, but have been skeptical of his morediffusionist claims.

Copy and paste: 31 January 2022 > 28 Jamadilakhir 1443H: 4.10 pm

Malayan Campaign

BY STEPHANIE HO > SINGAPORE INFOPEDIA

The Malayan Campaign consisted of a series of battles fought in Malaya between Allied (mainly British Commonwealth) and Axis (primarily Japanese) forces. The campaign began on 8 December 1941 when Japanese forces landed in Singora and Patani in southern Thailand, and Kota Bharu in northern Malaya. The campaign ended on 31 January 1942 with the Japanese forces gaining control of the Malay Peninsula.

Reasons for campaign

Japan embarked on the Malayan Campaign for various reasons. A key motivation was acquiring the raw materials needed for Japan's industrial development and its war efforts. 

The need to gain control of the raw materials found in Malaya gained greater urgency after the US placed economic sanctions on Japan in response to Japanese troops moving into Indochina in 1941. The sanctions included the freezing of Japanese funds in the US, the annulment of a commercial treaty, and the prohibition of US petroleum and scrap iron exports to Japan. 

The control of Malaya was also seen by the Japanese as a necessary step towards conquering Singapore, which was then seen as the pivot of British defence in the Asia-Pacific region.

Preparation for war

The Japanese preparation for the invasion of Malaya and Singapore began in 1941. The Doro Nawa or Taiwan Army Research Department took charge of researching and planning Japanese military strategy in Asia. Masanobu Tsuji was the officer-in-charge of operations and planning in the Malayan sector and the mastermind of the Malayan Campaign. Japanese troops were trained to fight in tropical conditions on Hainan Island in China. They also carried out reconnaissance work in Malaya as part of their preparations.

Britain had been building up its military defences in Singapore and Malaya since the end of World War I. This exercise included the construction of military installations such as aerodromes in northern Malaya. However, the British had insufficient land or air forces to properly defend these territories.

The defence of Singapore and Malaya hinged on the Singapore naval base at Sembawang, which became operational in 1938. Boasting the largest dry dock in the world at the time, the plan was for Britain to dispatch capital ships to the naval base whenever Singapore or Malaya was threatened by a foreign invader. It was assumed that the navy would then easily put down the threat. The main objective of the other forces in Malaya and Singapore was thus to protect the naval base.

First landings

On 8 December 1941, the Japanese launched several military operations simultaneously. The Japanese air force launched bombing attacks on the US naval base at Pearl Harbor in Hawaii, as well as Allied bases in Singapore, Hong Kong and the Philippines. Troops of the Japanese 25th Army, under the command of Lieutenant General Tomoyuki Yamashita, also landed in Singora and Patani in southern Thailand, and Kota Bharu in northern Malaya. At the time, the 25th Army consisted of three experienced and capable divisions: the 5th, 18th and Imperial Guards divisions.

Sinking of the Repulse and Prince of Wales

On hearing news of the Japanese landings, the British dispatched Force Z, which comprised the battleship H.M.S. Prince of Wales, battlecruiser H.M.S. Repulse and four destroyers, to intercept Japanese troopships in the north. The Royal Navy ships had arrived in Singapore on 2 December to great fanfare.

The decision to send the ships to counter the Japanese landings was a risky one as the fleet had no air protection; the fleet was only shielded by poor weather. The ships were eventually spotted by Japanese submarines and planes, and sunk off the coast of Kuantan, Malaya, on 10 December 1941.

Northern Malaya

When Japanese troops landed on the beaches of Kota Bharu in Kelantan, northern Malaya, they were met by Allied ground troops and air forces. Although the defenders managed to destroy two Japanese transport ships and bring down the first wave of troops, the overwhelming numbers of Japanese troops forced the Allies to retreat.

Japanese Zero fighters also began bombing the airfield in Kota Bharu and other airfields in northern Malaya, namely those at Sungei Patani, Butterworth, Penang, Gong Kedah and Machang. The performance and accuracy of the Japanese planes surprised the Allied forces. The air attacks seriously destroyed British installations and weakened the Allied air force.

At the end of the day, only 50 out of the original 110 British aircraft in northern Malaya survived the attacks. The remaining planes were ordered to retreat to safer airfields in Kuantan.

The British had anticipated a Japanese landward attack and developed a first-strike plan known as Operation Matador. Under the plan, Allied forces would intercept the Japanese forces just over the Thai border, giving the main forces in Malaya time to gather and attack. However, political considerations held back the activation of the plan until it was too late.

Allied troops, who were on standby for Operation Matador, were then ordered to Jitra, Kedah, to form a defence line there. As a result, the Japanese troops at Singora and Patani crossed the Thai border and entered northwest Malaya with little resistance.

In heavy rain, the Allied forces tried to hold the Japanese at Jitra but were overwhelmed by the invaders. The Japanese pushed through the line using tanks and infantry, forcing the defenders to retreat over two days on 12 and 13 December. The Japanese inflicted heavy losses on the Allied forces at Jitra, capturing large quantities of weapons, vehicles and communications equipment, and taking more than 1,000 prisoners.

On 11 December, the Japanese started bombing Penang town. On the first day of bombing, about 2,000 people were killed or wounded. Lacking air power, the British were helpless against the attacks and evacuated British civilians on 13 December. On 19 December, the Japanese captured Penang.

Central Malaya

After the fall of the Jitra line, Allied troops retreated south to Kampar where they held the Japanese for two days before retreating to the Slim River area in Selangor.

The Allied forces’ Gurkha troops put up a strong fight against the Japanese at Slim River but were eventually overrun by Japanese tanks and troops. The Battle of Slim River on 7 January 1942 was a disaster for the Allies. Of the 5,000 men from the two Indian brigades who fought in the battle, only about 1,173 officers and men survived. Losing Slim River also resulted in the loss of central Malaya to the Japanese.

The Japanese continued their relentless advance southward while the Allies retreated to Johor to rest and reorganise. The Japanese were able to make a quick advance down the peninsula because they travelled light and made use of bicycles.19 Thus the Japanese easily captured the Malayan states of Selangor (including the federal capital, Kuala Lumpur, on 11 January 1942), Negeri Sembilan and Malacca. The Allied forces retreated to Johor, where they aimed to hold the Japanese until reinforcements arrived.

Johor

In Johor, Australian troops led by Major General Gordon Bennett made a successful first attack on the Japanese at Gemencheh Bridge in Gemas on 14 January 1942. The Australians estimated the number of dead and wounded at around 800. However, this setback did not stop the Japanese advance. The Japanese quickly rebuilt the bridge and brought across truckloads of reinforcements.

Subsequently, fighting continued in the areas around Muar, Yong Peng and Batu Pahat. The Allied troops put up a strong resistance and were able to hold up the Japanese for a week despite the lack of air and tank support. Between 16 and 22 January 1942, the Japanese lost a company of tanks and the equivalent of a battalion of troops. 

The Allied forces also suffered heavy losses in Muar, losing many officers and two companies of men. In a battle near the bridge at Parit Sulong, the Allied troops were forced to retreat quickly, leaving behind the wounded who were subsequently massacred by the Japanese. 

On 27 January 1942, General Officer Commanding (GOC) Malaya Lieutenant General A. E. Percival decided that the Allied forces could no longer hold on to Johor and approved the withdrawal of Allied troops into Singapore. 

The Malayan Campaign ended on 31 January 1942 when the last Allied troops crossed the Causeway linking Johor to Singapore. Allied engineers subsequently blew a 70-ft (approximately 21 m) gap in the structure in a bid to slowdown the Japanese advance into Singapore.

Timeline

7–8 Dec 1941: Japanese attack Pearl Harbor; Japanese troops land in Singora, Patani and Kota Bharu.

10 Dec 1941: Japanese sink HMS Repulse and HMS Prince of Wales.

12–13 Dec 1941: Fall of Jitra line.

19 Dec 1941: Japanese capture Penang.

7 Jan 1942: Battle of Slim River.

11 Jan 1942: Japanese capture Kuala Lumpur.

16 Jan 1942: Battle of Muar.

31 Jan 1942: Last Allied troops cross the Causeway into Singapore.

Author

Stephanie Ho

References

1. Wigmore, L. (1957). The Japanese thrust. Canberra: Australian War Memorial, p. 6. (Call no.: RCLOS 940.5425 WIG)

2. Tsuji, M. (1997). Japan’s greatest victory, Britain’s worst defeat. Staplehurst, UK: Spellmount, p. 2. (Call no.: RSING 940.5425 TSU -[WAR])

3. Tsuji, M. (1997). Japan’s greatest victory, Britain’s worst defeat. Staplehurst, UK: Spellmount, p. 177. (Call no.: RSING 940.5425 TSU -[WAR])

4. Tsuji, M. (1988). Singapore 1941–42: The Japanese version of the Malayan Campaign of World War II. Singapore: Oxford University Press, p. 24. (Call no.: RSING 940.5425 TSU -[WAR]); Tsuji, M. (1997). Japan’s greatest victory, Britain’s worst defeat. Staplehurst, UK: Spellmount, pp. 2–11. (Call no.: RSING 940.5425 TSU -[WAR])

5. Percival, A. E. (1949). The war in Malaya. London: Eyre and Spottiswoode, p. 43. (Call no.: RRARE 940.53595 PER)

6. Percival, A. E. (1949). The war in Malaya. London: Eyre & Spottiswoode, pp. 36, 43. (Call no.: RRARE 940.53595 PER)

7. Turnbull, C. M. (1989). A history of Singapore 1819–1988. Singapore: Oxford University Press, pp. 165–166. (Call no.: RSING 959.57 TUR-[HIS])

8. Owen, F. (1960). The fall of Singapore. London: Michael Joseph, p. 33. (Call no.: RCLOS 940.5425 OWE -[RFL])

9. Wigmore, L. (1957). The Japanese thrust. Canberra: Australian War Memorial, p. 144. (Call no.: RCLOS 940.5425 WIG)

10. Thompson, P. (2005). The battle for Singapore: The true story of the greatest catastrophe of World War II. London: Portrait, pp. 132–134. (Call no.: RSING 940.5425 THO -[WAR])

11. Percival, A. E. (1949). The war in Malaya. London: Eyre & Spottiswoode, p. 114. (Call no.: RRARE 940.53595 PER)

12. Thompson, P. (2005). The battle for Singapore: The true story of the greatest catastrophe of World War II. London: Portrait, p. 136. (Call no.: RSING 940.5425 THO -[WAR])

13. Ong C. C. (2011). Operation Matador: World War II – Britain’s attempt to foil the Japanese invasion of Malaya and Singapore. Singapore: Marshall Cavendish Editions. (Call no.: RSING 940.542595 ONG -[WAR])

14. Thompson, P. (2005). The battle for Singapore: The true story of the greatest catastrophe of World War II. London: Portrait, p. 128. (Call no.: RSING 940.5425 THO -[WAR])

15. Falk, S. L. (1975). Seventy days to Singapore: The Malayan campaign 1941–1942. London: Robert Hale, p. 130. (Call no.: RSING 940.5425 FAL -[WAR])

16. Corfield, J. & Corfield, R. (2012). The fall of Singapore: 90 days: November 1941–February 1942. Singapore: Talisman Publishing, p. 209. (Call no.: RSING 940.5425957 COR -[WAR])

17. Wigmore, L. (1957). The Japanese thrust. Canberra: Australian War Memorial, p. 189. (Call no.: RCLOS 940.5425 WIG)

18. Thompson, P. (2005). The battle for Singapore: The true story of the greatest catastrophe of World War II. London: Portrait, pp. 192–193. (Call no.: RSING 940.5425 THO -[WAR])

19. Wigmore, L. (1957). The Japanese thrust. Canberra: Australian War Memorial, p. 186. (Call no.: English RCLOS 940.5425 WIG)

20. Tsuji, M. Japan’s greatest victory, Britain’s worst defeat. (1997). Staplehurst, UK: Spellmount. p. 145. (Call no.: RSING 940.5425 TSU -[WAR])

21. Wigmore, L. (1957). The Japanese thrust. Canberra: Australian War Memorial, p. 198. (Call no.: RCLOS 940.5425 WIG)

22. Thompson, P. (2005). The battle for Singapore: The true story of the greatest catastrophe of World War II. London: Portrait, p. 216. (Call no.: RSING 940.5425 THO -[WAR])

23. Percival, A. E. (1949). The war in Malaya. London: Eyre & Spottiswoode, p. 233. (Call no.: RRARE 940.53595 PER)

24. Thompson, P. (2005). The battle for Singapore: The true story of the greatest catastrophe of World War II. London: Portrait, p.231. (Call no.: RSING 940.5425 THO -[WAR])

25. Percival, A. E. (1949). The war in Malaya. London: Eyre & Spottiswoode, p. 225. (Call no.: RRARE 940.53595 PER)

26. Owen, F. (1960). The fall of Singapore. London: Michael Joseph, pp.130–132. (Call no.: RCLOS 940.5425 OWE -[RFL])

27. Percival, A. E. (1949). The war in Malaya. London: Eyre & Spottiswoode, p. 245. (Call no.: RRARE 940.53595 PER)

28. Wigmore, L. (1957). The Japanese thrust. Canberra: Australian War Memorial, p. 283. (Call no.: RCLOS 940.5425 WIG)

Copy and paste:

Hj Zulheimy Maamor

Lembah Keramat, KL

30 January 2022 > 27 Jamadilakhir 1443H: 1.45 pm

Battle of Singapore

BY STEPHANIE HO > SINGAPORE INFOPEDIA

The Battle of Singapore was fought from 8 to 15 February 1942 between Allied (mainly British Commonwealth) and Japanese forces. The first Japanese troops landed in Singapore via the northwestern coastline on 8 February 1942. After a week of intense fighting, the British Lieutenant General Arthur E. Percival surrendered Singapore to the Japanese forces under the command of Lieutenant General Tomoyuki Yamashita.

Preparation for war

From the end of World War I onwards, Britain had begun to build up its defences in Singapore in light of the growing military threat from Japan. A naval base was constructed in Sembawang and huge guns were emplaced in strategic locations along Singapore’s coastline to fend off possible naval attacks. 

In 1938, Governor Sir Shenton Thomas opened what was then the largest dry dock in the world at the naval base. However, the base did not host any permanent naval fleet. The British strategy was to dispatch a fleet to the base only when a threat was imminent.

Despite its limited defences, the political leaders and media at the time contributed to the impression that Singapore was secure against any attack. Newspapers referred to Singapore as being a “Gibraltar of the East”, a “fortress” that was “impregnable”, suggesting that the island was virtually impossible to conquer.

Fall of Malaya

The first attack on Singapore came on 8 December 1941 when Japanese planes dropped the first bombs on the island, killing 61 and injuring 133 people in the process. On that same day, the Japanese 25th army landed troops in Singora and Patani in southern Thailand and Kota Bharu in northern Malaya.

Conscious that British defences were focused on the sea, Japan approached Singapore from its back door, Malaya. The British army had anticipated a landward attack and developed a first strike plan code-named “Operation Matador” to stop the Japanese advance in Thailand. However, political reasons prevented Operation Matador from being activated until it was too late.

The main Japanese force moved swiftly down the western flank of the Malay Peninsula with the help of motor vehicles and bicycles. Poorly trained, lacking in experience and equipment, the Allied troops could not hold their positions and were forced to retreat. In less than two months, the Japanese had eliminated British naval and air capabilities, and captured Malaya. 

The last Allied troops crossed the Causeway and withdrew to Singapore on 31 January 1942. Allied engineers subsequently blew a 70-ft (approximately 21 m) gap in the structure in a bid to slow down the Japanese advance into Singapore.

Singapore’s defence strategy

At the start of the Battle of Singapore, the Allied forces numbered around 85,000 men, of which about 70,000 were armed. The Allied forces had a total of 38 infantry battalions as well as artillery regiments, anti-tank regiments and anti-aircraft guns. Despite their superior numbers, many of the soldiers were either weary veterans of the Malayan Campaign or inexperienced new recruits. They were also fast running out of weapons and ammunition.

Lieutenant General Arthur E. Percival, who as General Officer Commanding (GOC) Malaya was the overall commander of the Allied troops, divided the island into four sectors – northern, western, southern and reserve – and assigned troops to defend the coastline of each sector. As far as possible, the Allied troops were ordered to prevent a Japanese landing on the island. As Percival believed that the Japanese would attack east of the Causeway where the naval base was located, he placed his strongest forces there.

Unfortunately, Percival’s reading of the Japanese invasion plan was mistaken. The Japanese commander Lieutenant General Tomoyuki Yamashita’s actual plan was for the 5th and 18th divisions to enter Singapore via the northwestern coastline. Their aim was to capture Tengah airfield and Bukit Panjang village. Subsequently, the Imperial Guards division would attack the Causeway sector and aim to take Mandai village and Nee Soon.

Japanese landing

On the night of 8 February 1942, the Japanese began to bombard the northwestern coastline of Singapore. Subsequently, the 5th and 18th divisions of the Japanese army crossed the Johor Straits in collapsible boats and overran the Australian soldiers tasked with guarding the area. It is believed that 13,000 troops crossed into Singapore that night. The next day, the Imperial Guards division crossed into Singapore at Kranji and via a repaired Causeway.

Bukit Timah

After landing in Singapore, the main objective of the Japanese Imperial Guards division was the Bukit Timah area. Not only was Bukit Timah Hill the highest point on the island, the area was also where the British petrol, oil and supply depots were located.

The Japanese forces faced stiff resistance from the Allied soldiers but managed to breach the Kranji-Jurong defence line when Allied forces retreated from the area due to a misunderstanding of orders. Japanese forces took Bukit Timah on 11 February and Yamashita established his headquarters at the Ford Factory located in the area.

After the loss of the Bukit Timah area, Allied troops were ordered to withdraw to the final defence perimeter around the city area stretching from Pasir Panjang to Kallang.

Pasir Panjang

On 13 February, the Japanese attacked Pasir Panjang Ridge. The ridge was a key location leading to the Allied forces’ main ammunition magazine, main ordnance depot, the Alexandra Military Hospital and other military installations. The Malay Regiment who defended the area put up a strong resistance but was eventually overwhelmed by the superior numbers and weapons of the Japanese in what became known as the Battle of Opium Hill.

Massacre at Alexandra Military Hospital

After gaining full control of Pasir Panjang Ridge on 14 February, Japanese troops moved into the Alexandra area. Despite the fact that the Alexandra Military Hospital was marked by red crosses, Japanese troops charged into the hospital and killed a British officer who had gone out to meet them with a white flag. The Japanese troops then entered an operating theatre and killed the patient on the operating table as well as the staff attending to him.

Another group of soldiers then entered the wards and bayoneted the patients indiscriminately. Later, the Japanese were said to have gathered about 200 patients and staff outside the hospital, tied them up with a rope and crammed them into three small rooms for the night. The next day they were tied together in threes and executed. It is estimated that around 280 staff and patients were killed over two days.

The surrender

By 15 February 1942, the situation in Singapore had become difficult for the Allied forces. There was only enough water supply for 24 hours due to breaks in the water mains and pipes. Furthermore, the main reservoirs were all in Japanese hands. Casualties from enemy bombing were increasing faster than the rate in which bodies could be collected and there was only three days’ worth of rations.

On the morning of 15 February, Percival met his commanders at the Fort Canning Bunker (also known as the Battle Box). In light of the circumstances, the decision was made to surrender to the Japanese. Later that day, Percival and his surrender party met Yamashita in the Japanese headquarters located at the Ford Factory in Bukit Timah and officially surrendered Singapore to the Japanese forces.

Timeline

8 Dec 1941: Japanese troops land at Singora, Patani and Kota Bharu; bombing of Singapore begins.

10 Dec 1941: Japanese sink the battleship HMS Prince of Wales and battlecruiser HMS Repulse off the coast of Kuantan, Malaya.

31 Jan 1942: Last Allied troops cross the Causeway into Singapore.

8 Feb 1942: First Japanese troops land in Singapore.

11 Feb 1942: Japanese troops capture Bukit Timah.

13–14 Feb 1942: Battle of Pasir Panjang Ridge.

14–15 Feb 1942: Massacre at Alexandra Military Hospital.

15 Feb 1942: British surrender to the Japanese at Ford Factory in Bukit Timah.

Author

Stephanie Ho

References

1. Ong, C. C. (1988). The landward defence of Singapore (1919–1938). Singapore: Centre for Advanced Studies, National University of Singapore, p. 12. (Call no.: RSING 355.03355957 ONG)

2. Percival, A. E. (1949). The war in Malaya. London: Eyre & Spottiswoode, pp. 36, 43. (Call no.: RRARE 940.53595 PER)

3. Gibraltars in the East. (1939, March 12). The Straits Times, p. 1; World importance of Singapore’s defences. (1940, June 11). The Straits Times. p. 10. Retrieved from NewspaperSG.

4. Lee, G. B. (2005). Syonan: Singapore under the Japanese 1942–1945. Singapore: National Archives of Singapore, p. 18. (Call no.: RSING q940.53957 LEE-[WAR])

5. Turnbull, C. M. (1989). A history of Singapore 1819–1988. Singapore: Oxford University Press, pp. 165–166. (Call no.: RSING 959.57 TUR-[HIS])

6. Ong, C. C. (2011). Operation Matador: World War II – Britain’s attempt to foil the Japanese invasion of Malaya and Singapore. Singapore: Marshall Cavendish Editions. (Call no.: RSING 940.542595 ONG-[WAR])

7. Wigmore, L. (1957). Canberra: Australian War Memorial, p. 283. (Call no.: RSING 940.5425 WIG-[WAR])

8. Thompson, P. (2005). The battle for Singapore: The true story of the greatest catastrophe of World War Two. London: Portrait Books, pp. 260–261. (Call no.: RSING 940.5425 THO-[WAR])

9. Thompson, P. (2005). The battle for Singapore: The true story of the greatest catastrophe of World War Two. London: Portrait Books, pp. 261–262. (Call no.: RSING 940.5425 THO-[WAR])

10. Thompson, P. (2005). The battle for Singapore: The true story of the greatest catastrophe of World War Two. London: Portrait Books, p. 262. (Call no.: RSING 940.5425 THO-[WAR])

11. Thompson, P. (2005). The battle for Singapore: The true story of the greatest catastrophe of World War Two. London: Portrait Books, p. 283. (Call no.: RSING 940.5425 THO-[WAR])

12. Thompson, P. (2005). The battle for Singapore: The true story of the greatest catastrophe of World War Two. London: Portrait Books, p. 297.(Call no.: RSING 940.5425 THO-[WAR])

13. Tan, S. T. L., et al. (2011). Battle for Singapore: Fall of the impregnable fortress. Singapore: National Archives of Singapore, p. 236. (Call no.: 940.5425957 TAN-[WAR])

14. Tan, S. T. L., et al. (2011). Battle for Singapore: Fall of the impregnable fortress. Singapore: National Archives of Singapore, p. 253. (Call no.: 940.5425957 TAN-[WAR])

15. Tan, S. T. L., et al. (2011). Battle for Singapore: Fall of the impregnable fortress. Singapore: National Archives of Singapore, pp. 261–262. (Call no.: 940.5425957 TAN-[WAR])

16. Tan, S. T. L., et al. (2011). Battle for Singapore: Fall of the impregnable fortress. Singapore: National Archives of Singapore, p. 264. (Call no.: 940.5425957 TAN-[WAR])

17. Tan, S. T. L., et al. (2011). Battle for Singapore: Fall of the impregnable fortress. Singapore: National Archives of Singapore, p. 244. (Call no.: 940.5425957 TAN-[WAR])

18. Tan, S. T. L., et al. (2011). Battle for Singapore: Fall of the impregnable fortress. Singapore: National Archives of Singapore, p. 290. (Call no.: 940.5425957 TAN-[WAR])

19. Corfield, J., & Corfield, R. (2012). The fall of Singapore: 90 days – November 1941–February 1942. Singapore: Talisman Publishing, p. 656. (Call no.: RSING 940.5425957 COR-[WAR])

Copy and paste:

30 January 2022 > 27 Jamadilakhir 1443H: 8.47 am

Battle of Opium Hill

CREDIT : SINGAPORE INFOPEDIA

The battle of Opium Hill took place on 14 February 1942 during the Japanese invasion of Singapore. Part of the wider battle for Pasir Panjang, the battle of Opium Hill is remembered for the heroic last stand of 2nd Lieutenant Adnan Saidi and the soldiers from C Company of the Malay Regiment’s 1st Battalion, against the 18th Division of the Imperial Japanese Army (IJA). 

Today, a WWII interpretive centre named Reflections at Bukit Chandu stands near the battle site to commemorate the heroism of the Malay Regiment.

Background

Opium Hill, or Bukit Chandu in Malay, stands on Pasir Panjang Ridge (now Kent Ridge) and derives its name from the opium-processing factory located at the foot of the hill. During the closing stages of the Battle of Singapore, the entire ridge formed part of the western end of the final British defence perimeter around Singapore. The ridge also protected the Alexandra area, where the British Military Hospital (now Alexandra Hospital) and vital British ammunition depots were located.

The Malay Regiment, with 1,400 men in its 1st and 2nd Battalions, was responsible for defending the Pasir Panjang Ridge. The 2nd Battalion defended the area between Ayer Rajah Road and the Gap (South Buona Vista Road), with A and C Companies of 1st Battalion guarding its left flank along the length of Reformatory Road. The 2nd Loyal Regiment, a British formation, was deployed to guard the 2nd Battalion’s right flank.

Battle of Pasir Panjang

On the morning of 13 February, the battle for Pasir Panjang commenced with an intense Japanese aerial and artillery bombardment of the Malay Regiment’s positions, inflicting heavy casualties and disrupting telephone communications. The 1st Battalion’s A Company was decimated by accurate Japanese artillery fire and was forced to withdraw from its advance positions. 

In the afternoon, the Japanese 18th Division, supported by mortars, tanks and aircraft, attacked the 2nd Battalion at Point 270 on Buona Vista Hill along the Pasir Panjang Ridge. Critically short of ammunition, the 2nd Battalion was forced to yield Point 270 and retreated through the Gap. The loss of Point 270 gave the IJA control over the western side of the ridge, exposing the right flank of C Company at Pasir Panjang Village to Japanese enfilade fire.

Despite being outnumbered and outflanked, C Company held the Pasir Panjang Village crossroads against Japanese attacks, strengthened by the remaining soldiers of A Company and two Bren carriers of the Loyal Regiment. 

Unable to advance, the Japanese set fire to the nearby undergrowth and set up a mortar position to bombard the Malay Regiment defenders. Private Yaacob bin Bidin of C Company crawled through the burning undergrowth to eliminate this Japanese mortar team with his light machine gun. Private Yaacob survived the war and was later awarded the Military Medal by the British for his bravery.

The battles on 13 February exacted a severe toll on the 1st Battalion, with four officers reported killed and eight wounded along with a “considerable” number of casualties from other ranks. The much-depleted 2nd Battalion became a brigade reserve and moved to Alexandra Brickworks, taking no further part in the battle.

By midnight on 13 February, the 1st Battalion withdrew to reconsolidate its defence. C Company left Pasir Panjang Village to take up a new defensive position at Opium Hill on the Pasir Panjang Ridge. To its left, B Company was deployed to cover the approaches to Buona Vista Village, while D Company held the Labrador area on the right flank of C Company. C and D Companies were separated by a drain of burning oil that flowed from the nearby Normanton Oil Depot, whose storage tanks had been set ablaze on 10 February 1942 by enemy action.

Last stand on Opium Hill

The Japanese bombarded Malay Regiment positions on the morning of 14 February. Supported by their tanks, the Japanese then launched a simultaneous attack along Buona Vista Road and Pasir Panjang Road in the afternoon. Lieutenant A. G. Mackenzie of B Company received the Military Cross for single-handedly eliminating a Japanese infantry gun crew, after coming to the rescue of a damaged Bren Carrier. From its vantage point on the ridge, C Company assisted the 2nd Loyal Regiment in driving off a separate Japanese attack with enfilade fire. Unfortunately, the Japanese troops overran B Company’s position, forcing the company to withdraw to the beach and join D Company at Labrador. This isolated C Company in between the Japanese troops on its left and the burning oil on its right.

During the attack on B Company, some Japanese troops, disguised as Punjabi soldiers, attempted to infiltrate C Company’s position on Opium Hill in the early afternoon. 

This ruse was uncovered by 2nd Lieutenant Adnan Saidi and 2nd Lieutenant Abbas bin Abdul Manan, who noticed the troops were marching in columns of four instead of the usual three, as was the norm for the British military. C Company then opened fire at close range, killing and wounding around 22 Japanese soldiers and forcing the rest to retreat.

Two hours after this failed infiltration attempt, the Japanese troops launched a direct attack on Opium Hill in superior numbers, supported by their aircraft and artillery. C Company Commander Captain H. R. Rix gave orders to defend the position, fighting fearlessly and inspiring his troops. 

The C Company soldiers, led by their officers, engaged in hand-to-hand combat until they were killed by Japanese troops. Adnan, a company officer in the 7th Platoon, fought on despite being mortally wounded and encouraged his men to continue fighting. Rix died fighting, with his body found after the battle among 12 other deceased Malay Regiment soldiers. 

In another platoon, Lieutenant Stephen led a bayonet charge to drive off the attacking Japanese after many of his men were killed or wounded, sacrificing himself in the attempt.The heroic actions of Rix and Adnan earned them mentions in despatches after the war.

As the Japanese overran Opium Hill, Abbas and the remainder of his platoon attempted to fight their way out. Finding their retreat cut off by the burning drain, Abbas and his remaining soldiers could only jump across the 20-foot gap, losing two men who fell into the flames. Abbas became the only officer from C Company to survive the battle of Opium Hill, returning to his battalion headquarters that evening with three men.

After capturing Opium Hill, the Japanese troops massacred the surviving soldiers of C Company. Adnan was taken captive by the Japanese, who shot and repeatedly bayonetted him to death. His body was hung upside down from a tree, where the Japanese refused to let work parties cut his body down for burial. Other C Company members like Corporal Din and Private Wan Ngah survived the massacre and escaped after dark.

Aftermath

After taking Pasir Panjang Ridge, Japanese forces advanced into the Alexandra area. With the Alexandra Ammunition Magazine on the frontlines, British troops could not easily access the desperately needed ammunition. 

In an event later known as the Alexandra Hospital massacre, Japanese troops killed 50 defenceless patients and medical staff at the British Military Hospital. Around 200 survivors were then rounded up and massacred behind a nurse’s residence across Ayer Rajah Road.

At dusk, D Company successfully ambushed Japanese troops marching down Pasir Panjang Road near the Alexandra Brickworks area. This would be the Malay Regiment’s last combat before the British surrender on 15 February 1942.

Commemoration

After the war, in 1947, the Department of Public Relations of the Malay Peninsular published The Malay Regiment 1933–1947 that chronicles the heroic deeds of the Malay Regiment. 

In 1995, a war memorial plaque in Kent Ridge Park was unveiled to commemorate the battle of Pasir Panjang and the Malay Regiment. A concrete pillbox on Pasir Panjang Road was also marked in 1998.

In 1992, members of the local Malay community suggested preserving the pre-war bungalow at 31-K Pepys Road on Opium Hill as a museum. At the cost of S$4.8 million, the bungalow was developed as Reflections at Bukit Chandu to commemorate the battle of Opium Hill and the heroism of the Malay Regiment. Reflections at Bukit Chandu was officially opened on 15 February 2002, coinciding with the 70th anniversary of the fall of Singapore. Since 2018, the centre has undergone a revamp and is slated to reopen in mid-2021.

In 2014, two veterans of the battle of Pasir Panjang, Corporal Mohammad Haji Eunos and Private Ujang Mormin, visited Reflections at Bukit Chandu on their first trip to Singapore since the end of World War II. When Ujang Mormin passed away from COVID-19 in February 2021, he was the last living Malay Regiment veteran who had fought at the battle of Pasir Panjang.

Authors

Nor-Afidah A Rahman, Nureza Ahmad & Alec Soong

References

1. Dol Ramli, “History of the Malay Regiment 1933–1942,” Journal of the Malaysian Branch of the Royal Asiatic Society 38, no. 1 (207) (1965): 235. (Call no.: RCLOS 959.5 JMBRAS-[HYT])

2. Brian P. Farrell, The Defence and Fall of Singapore 1940–1942 (Singapore: Monsoon, 2015), 426. (Call no.: RSING 940.5425957 FAR-[WAR]); Hamzah Muzaini and Brenda S. A. Yeoh, “War Landscapes as ‘Battlefields’ of Collective Memories: Reading the Reflections at Bukit Chandu, Singapore,” Cultural Geographies 12, no. 3 (July 2005): 348. (From JSTOR via NLB’s eResources website)

3. Muzaini and Yeoh, “War Landscapes,” 348–49.

4. Mubin Sheppard, The Malay Regiment 1933–1947 (Kuala Lumpur: Department of Public Relations, 1947), 18. (Call no.: RCLOS 355.31 SHE-[RFL]); “Preparing Opium For Smokers,” Straits Times, 5 May 1930, 15; Fascinating Processes Inspected,” Malaya Tribune, 3 May 1930, 9. (From NewspaperSG).

5. Farrell, The Defence and Fall of Singapore, 423, 425.

6. Ramli, “History of the Malay Regiment,” 237.

7. Ramli, “History of the Malay Regiment,” 228; Farrell, The Defence and Fall of Singapore, 424.

8. Ramli, “History of the Malay Regiment,” 232–33.)

9. Sheppard, The Malay Regiment, 15.

10. Ramli, “History of the Malay Regiment,” 232.

11. Ramli, “History of the Malay Regiment,” 233; Sheppard, The Malay Regiment, 16.

12. Sheppard, The Malay Regiment, 15.

13. Ramli, “History of the Malay Regiment,” 235.

14. Ramli, “History of the Malay Regiment,” 235.

15. Farrell, The Defence and Fall of Singapore, 425.

16. Farrell, The Defence and Fall of Singapore, 425

17. Ramli, “History of the Malay Regiment,” 236.

18. Ramli, “History of the Malay Regiment,” 236.

19. Sheppard, The Malay Regiment, 16.

20. Sheppard, The Malay Regiment, 16.

21. Sheppard, The Malay Regiment, 16.

22. Ramli, “History of the Malay Regiment,” 236–37.

23. Ramli, “History of the Malay Regiment,” 236.

24. Sheppard, The Malay Regiment, 16.

25. Sheppard, The Malay Regiment, 16.

26. Sheppard, The Malay Regiment, 17.

27. Ramli, “History of the Malay Regiment,” 238.

28. Ramli, “History of the Malay Regiment,” 237–38.

29. Ramli, “History of the Malay Regiment,” 238.

30. Sheppard, The Malay Regiment, 17.

31. Ramli, “History of the Malay Regiment,” 238.

32. Sheppard, The Malay Regiment, 17.

33. Sheppard, The Malay Regiment, 18.

34. Ramli, “History of the Malay Regiment,” 239.

35. Ramli, “History of the Malay Regiment,” 239.

36. Ramli, “History of the Malay Regiment,” 239.

37. Sheppard, The Malay Regiment, 18.

38. Sheppard, The Malay Regiment, 18.

39. Sheppard, The Malay Regiment, 18.

40. Ramli, “History of the Malay Regiment,” 239.

41. Sheppard, The Malay Regiment, 18.

42. Sheppard, The Malay Regiment, 51–52; “No. 37671,” London Gazette (Supplement), 30 July 1946, 3921, accessed 16 March 2021.

43. Sheppard, The Malay Regiment, 18.

44. Sheppard, The Malay Regiment, 18.

45. Sheppard, The Malay Regiment, 18.

46. Sheppard, The Malay Regiment, 18.

47. Ramli, “History of the Malay Regiment,” 239.

48. Ramli, “History of the Malay Regiment,” 239.

49. The Malays Fought As Well As The Best Empire Troops, Straits Times, 6 May 1947, 8. (From NewspaperSG); Ramli, “History of the Malay Regiment,” 239.

50. Farrell, The Defence and Fall of Singapore, 428–29.

51. Farrell, The Defence and Fall of Singapore, 427.

52. Ramli, “History of the Malay Regiment,” 240.

53. Ramli, “History of the Malay Regiment,” 240.

54. Sheppard, The Malay Regiment.

55. “Kent Ridge Honours Those Who Died in WWII,” Straits Times, 11 June 1995, 3; “WWII Plaque Holds Special Significance For 2 Retired Army Men,” Straits Times, 11 June 1995, 23; “Marking of WWII Sites to Serve as Reminder,” Straits Times, 9 June 1995, 29. (From NewspaperSG).

56. “WWII Machine-Gun Pillbox Marked,” Straits Times, 15 February 1998, 25. (From NewspaperSG)

57. “WWII Bungalow as Museum?” Straits Times, 1 March 1992, 2; Yohanna Abdullah, “Make Bungalow at WWII Battleground a Museum,” Straits Times, 1 March 1992, 16; Abdul Rahman b. Mohd Said, “War Museum Must Be a Collective Effort,” Straits Times, 12 March 1992, 28; Chan Kwee Sung, “Saluting the War Heroes,” Straits Times, 8 February 2002, 16. (From NewspaperSG); Donna Brunero, “Archives and Heritage in Singapore: The Development of ‘Reflections at Bukit Chandu’, a World War II Interpretive Centre,” International Journal of Heritage Studies 12, no. 5 (2006): 431. https://doi.org/10.1080/13527250600821613

58. Chan, “Saluting the War Heroes,” 16; Brunero, “Archives and Heritage in Singapore,” 431–32.

59. Derek Wong, “Reflections at Bukit Chandu to Be Revamped,” Straits Times, 31 August 2018, accessed 14 March 2021.

60. Melody Zaccheus, “Veterans Relive Battle of Pasir Panjang,” Straits Times, 7 March 2014, 4. (From NewspaperSG)

61. “Ujang Mormin, Who Fought in Historic Battle of Pasir Panjang, Dies After Contracting COVID-19,” Channel News Asia, 11 February 2021, accessed 10 May 2021; “Private Ujang Mormin, Last Survivor of Battle of Pasir Panjang during WWII, Dies Due to Covid-19,” Straits Times, 10 February 2021, accessed 10 May 2021.

Copy and paste:

Hj Zulheimy Maamor

Lembah Keramat, KL

30 January 2022 > 27 Jamadilakhir 1443H: 7.35 am

Further resources

Kevin Blackburn and Karl Hack, War Memory and the Making of Modern Malaysia and Singapore (Singapore: NUS Press, 2012). (Call no. RSING 940.53595 BLA-[WAR]).

Frank Owen, The Fall of Singapore (London: Penguin Books, 2001), 192–203. (Call no. RSING 940.5425 OWE-[WAR])

“Proud Day for Malay Regiment,” Straits Times, 13 February 1957, 7. (From NewspaperSG)

“Remember S’pore, Malay Regt. Told,” Straits Times, 14 February 1952, 4. (From NewspaperSG)

Alan Warren, Singapore 1942: Britain’s Greatest Defeat (Singapore: Talisman, 2002), 255–61. (Call no. RSING 940.5425 WAR-[WAR])