Words on the Web Collated by: Investigative Content Analysis Research Group Issue: 11 September 2008 Theme: The Historical Malay? Sungai Melayu (Melayu River), a tributary of Sungai Batang Hari, in an area called Jambi, in south-eastern Sumatra. Sriwijaya invaded and conquered Melayu some time in the 7th century. However, the linguistic and cultural traditions of the Melayu or Jambi kingdom survived and prevailed, in fact grew and spread further under Sriwijaya, so much so that more or less the whole Sriwijaya realm adopted them and made them their own.
A More Complex History of Malaya by Dreamhunter This is adapted from an email sent to me by a reader from Malaysia after he saw my earlier article Who is Malay? b He was originally from Kelantan, but now lives in Kuala Lumpur. History is his hobby, he reports.(Yawning Bread)c
Your article Who is Malay? has incorporated some interesting and historically sound information, such as the ancient migration of Malay peoples from Taiwan southwards to Philippines (not its name then) to Borneo (an Anglicised version of Beruni) onward to Java, Sumatra and the Malay Peninsula. On the other hand, your assertion of Malacca as the lone currently politically accepted cradle of Malay civilisation in Malaysia is incorrect. The oldest Malay kingdom is accepted as Kedah, the seat of the greater Langkasuka coalition of kingdoms in northern Malaya, which also included Pattani, Beruas (Gangga Negara), Kelantan, Terengganu and Pahang.
Jambi is situated just north of Palembang, the seat of the Sriwijaya empire. In 1088, the Dharmasraya royal family of Melayu/Jambi invaded Palembang and conquered it, thus achieving a reverse takeover of Sriwijaya which they maintained for the next two centuries. The sprawling Sriwijaya realm throughout its long history maintained several regional capitals, presumably to facilitate trade with neighbouring kingdoms. The Khmer or Kemboja kingdom in its early years was a tributary state of Sriwijaya. So too was a Siamese kingdom called Nakhon Si Thammasoke  in southern Siam/northern Malaya which assumed the official name of Sriwijaya Suvarna Bhumi (Sriwijaya Land of Gold).
There is no problem among peninsula Malays about Sriwijaya  which is acknowledged by all Malays as the classical Malay empire. Langkasuka itself for a while became a tribute kingdom of Sriwijaya. Malays also have no problem about their ancestors being mixed Hindu/Buddhist/animist. Well, you can't deny history, can you?
There has also been a long history of ethnic interaction between Burmans, Thais, Malays, Khmers, Annamese, Chams and other South East Asian ethnic groups. The Mekong riverine system could be a likely link, a land link in much the same way the sea link connected peninsula Malays with their archipelagic counterparts. The Chams for example, who ruled in today's central and southern Vietnam  were a Malay people with their own kingdom. The oldest kingdom in South East Asia was the Funan kingdom which very likely was a mixed Burmese/Thai/Malay/Khmer/etc. realm . Then again, if you speak to a Thai ultra-nationalist, he'd tell you that the whole of mainland South East Asia comprises various branches of the lost ancient Thai race (which may be because he'd like to one day reunite into a single Thai kingdom). Whereas, a Kedah royalist would tell you that ancient Siam was in fact first founded by a Kedah prince. So, there you go.
(The borders shown in the map are modern ones, for indicative purposes only)
In case, you haven't come across this information, the first kingdom called 'Melayu' was founded around a b c
Thus, when you read "Malay", the term has many levels of meaning depending on the context in which it appears. On a Malaysian daily, it would mean "Malaysian Malay". Whereas on an anthropological
http://www.yawningbread.org/guest_2007/guw-137.htm (Viewed 9/9/2008) http://www.yawningbread.org/arch_2005/yax-455.htm (Viewed 9/9/2008) http://www.yawningbread.org/aboutme.htm (Viewed 9/9/2008)
disappeared by about the 5th century CE, and so readers should be careful not to confuse it into the story of Sriwijaya, which came later.
research paper, it could mean anything relating to the entire Malay archipelago. Thus, in a narrow sense, and out of nationalistic pride, a Javanese man wouldn't say he's a Malay. But in a broader sense, the Javanese are also members of the larger Malay ethnic family, which in turn is a member of the even larger Malayo-Melanesian-PolynesianAustronesian family.
 Note by Dreamnhunter: If I may suggest, try looking up 'Langkasuka', 'Sriwijaya', 'Malay World', 'Nusantara', 'Ancient Malay Kingdoms' & 'Malay Archipelago' for further reading.
Is there really a race called 'Malays'?d
Finally, here's an interesting mention from Wikipedia's entry on the Thai kingdom of Ayutthaya:
by Michael This piece was written as a comment by someone called Michael to Dreamhunter's guest article A more complex history of 'Malay', which in turn was a response to my own essay Who is Malay?. Since Michael's comment was so long, Yawning Bread decided to take it out and republish it as a guest article in its own right, with minor editing (spelling, making references clearer, etc). This article contests the way the term "Malay" tends to be used. I think he's basically saying that it's being used for political purposes, and as such, is often riddled by inconsistencies. Ultimately, this piece isn't about the history of Malays, but is better categorised as part of Malaysian political debate. It questions the claims to historical legitimacy by various actors. Readers may better understand the thrust of this piece by seeing it in this light. For this reason, Yawning Bread decided not to edit the terms Michael has used â€“ terms (including Malay words and spelling rather than English spelling) that may be incomprehensible to non-Malaysians.(Yawning Bread)
During much of the fifteenth century Ayutthaya's energies were directed toward the Malay Peninsula, where the great trading port of Malacca contested its claims to sovereignty. Ayutthaya was successful with the military support of Ming China and Japan, who wanted to share the wealth of trade at Malacca. The northernmost loose confederations of Malay states were not well bound to Palembang, the Srivijayan capital. During this time, they stretched all the way north as far as modern day Chumporn, and far south including Pattani. It is highly probable that the entire Indochina region was occupied by Malay peoples before the arrival of the Thai, Vietnamese, Chinese, and Burmese, of whom were pushed south or killed. Places across the region from Vietnam to Burma still bear Malay names.
It's been interesting to read that there are people who understand that there is more than what meets the eye on history. While we are on the subject, how many of you have read the book entitled "Contesting Malayness - Malay Identity Across Boundaries" Edited by Timothy P. Barnard published by Singapore University Press.?
You'd notice the sentence in it inferring that the entire Indo-China region could likely have been an almost completely Malay-inhabited area, before Malays were pushed out south, killed off etc. by later arrivals from neighbouring regions. Perhaps the Malay peoples have an unfortunate natural tendency to be too laid back, too friendly, too welcoming to strangers, too gentle etc. all of which may have not been too good for themselves in the end?
Written by a Professor of National University of Singapore. Cost S$32 (about). It reflects anthropologists' view that there is no such race as the "Malays" to begin with. If we follow the original migration of the Southern Chinese of 6,000 years ago, they moved into Taiwan, (now the Alisan), then into the Philippines (now the Aeta) and moved into Borneo 4,500 years ago (Dayak). They also split into Sulawesi and progressed into Jawa, and Sumatera. The final migration was to the Malayan Peninsula 3,000 years ago. A sub-group from Borneo also moved to Champa in Vietnam at 4,500 years ago.
Endnotes  Note by Yawning Bread: Sometimes spelt as Sri Vijaya  Note by Dreamhunter: Doesn't the name Thammasoke ring a bell? Tones of Temasik, perhaps? You see, Temasik was also at different times a vassal state of Siam.
Interestingly, the Champa deviant group moved back to present day Kelantan state in Malaysia . There are also traces of the Dong Song and Hoa Binh migration from Vietnam and Cambodia. To confuse the issue, there was also the Southern Thai migration, from what we know as Pattani today. (see also "Early Kingdoms of the Indonesian Archipelago and the Malay Peninsula")
 Note by Yawning Bread: Champa, their kingdom, was extant between the 7th and 17th centuries, BCE. After a major defeat by the Vietnamese in 1471, more and more of Champa was absorbed into the Vietnamese kingdom. This date also marks the beginning of an exodus of Chams into Cambodia, where they are now a notable minority among the Khmers.  Note by Yawning Bread: Funan, which first appeared in Chinese historical records in the 1st century CE, had
http://www.yawningbread.org/guest_2007/guw-143.htm (Viewed 9/9/2008)
South China Sea. Worse, somehow, they feel even more insulted when you call them "Malay". Somehow, "kurang ajar" is uttered below their breath as if "Malay" was a really bad word for them. I’m still trying to figure this one out.
Of course, we also have the Minangkabau's which come from the descendants of Alexander the Great and a West Indian Princess. (Sejarah Melayu page 1-3) So the million Dollar Question... Is there really a race called the "Malays"? All anthropologists DO NOT SEEM TO THINK SO.
Watch "Malays in Africa"; a Museum Negara produced DVD. Also, the "Champa Malays" by the same.
Neither do the "Malays" who live on the West Coast of Johor. They'd rather be called Javanese. What about the inhabitants on the west coast of Kedah who prefer to be known as "Achenese"? or the Ibans who simply want to be known as IBANS. Try calling a Kelabit a "Malay" and see what response you get... you’ll be so glad that their Head-Hunting days are over.
With this classification, they MUST also include the Filipinos, the Papua New Guineans, the Australian aborigines, as well as the Polynesian aborigines. These are of the Australo Melanesians who migrated out of Africa 60,000yrs ago. Getting interesting? Read on...
Here is an excerpt from an article in the Star, dated: 3 Dec 2006. An excerpt is reproduced here below:
"Malay" should also include the Taiwanese singer "Ah Mei" who is Alisan as her tribe are the ancestors of the "Malays". And finally, you will need to define the Southern Chinese (Southern Province) as Malay also, since they are from the same stock 6,000yrs ago.
The Malays – taken as an aggregation of people of different ethnic backgrounds but who speak the same language or family of languages and share common cultural and traditional ties – are essentially a new race, compared to the Chinese, Indians and the Arabs with their long histories of quests and conquests.
Try calling the Bugis a "Malay". Interestingly, the Bugis, who predominantly live on Sulawesi are not even Indonesians. Neither do they fall into the same group as the migrating Southern Chinese of 6,000yrs ago nor the Australo Melanesian group from Africa.
The Malay nation, therefore, covers people of various ethnic stock, including Javanese, Bugis, Bawean, Achehnese, Thai, orang asli, the indigenous people of Sabah and Sarawak and descendants of Indian Muslims who had married local women.
Ready for this? The Bugis are the cross-breed between the Mongolian Chinese and the wandering Arab Pirates. (FYI, a runaway Ming Dynasty official whom Cheng Ho was sent to hunt down) Interestingly, the Bugis were career Pirates in the Johor-Riau Island areas. Now the nephew of Daeng Kemboja was appointed the First Sultan of Selangor. That makes the entire Selangor Sultanate part Arab, part Chinese! Try talking to the Bugis Museum curator near Kukup in Johor. Kukup is located near the most south-western tip of Johor. (Due south of Pontian Kechil)
Beneath these variations, however, there is a common steely core that is bent on changing the Malay persona from its perceived lethargic character to one that is brave, bold and ready to take on the world. The definition of "Malay" is therefore simply a collection of peoples who speak a similar type language. With what is meant by a similar type language does not mean that the words are similar. Linguists call this the "Lego-type" language, where words are added on to the root word to make meaning and give tenses and such. Somehow, the Indonesians disagree with this classification and insist on being called "Indonesians" even though the majority of "Malays" have their roots in parts of Indonesia. They refuse to be called "Malay"…. Any way you may define it.
Let's not even get into the Hang Tuah, Hang Jebat, Hang Kasturi, Hang Lekiu, and Hang Lekir, who shared the same family last name as the other super famous "Hang" family member... Hang Li Poh. And who was she? Legend tells us that she is the princess of a Ming Dynasty Emperor who was sent to marry the Sultan of Malacca. Won't that make the entire Malacca Sultanate downline "Baba" ? Since the older son of the collapsed Malaccan Sultanate got killed in Johor, (the current Sultanate is the downline of the then, Bendahara) the only other son became the Sultan of Perak. Do we see any Chinese-ness in Raja Azlan? Is he the descendant of Hang Li Poh? But wait a minute....
The Star newspaper writer failed to identify (probably didn't know), that the "Malay" definition also includes, the Champa, Dong Song, Hoa Binhian, The Taiwanese Alisan and the Filipino Aetas. He also did not identify that the "Orang Asli" are (for lack of a better term) exAfricans. If you try to call any one of our East Malaysian brothers an "Orang Asli", they WILL BEAT YOU UP! I had to repeat this because almost all West Malaysians make the same mistake when we cross the
That's what legend says. Let's look at the proof. The solid evidence. There is a well next to the Zheng He
So, how many of you have met with orang Asli’s? the more northern you go, the more African they look. Why are they called Negrito’s? It is a Spanish word, from which directly transalates "mini Negros". The more southern you go, the more "Indonesian" they look. And the ones who live at Cameron Highlands kinda look 50-50. You can see the Batek at Taman Negara, who really look like Eddie Murphy to a certain degree. Or the Negritos who live at the Thai border near Temenggor Lake (north Perak). The Mah Meri in Carrie Island look almost like the Jakuns in Endau Rompin. Half African, half Indonesian.
Temple in Malacca which is supposed to be the well built by the Sultan of Malacca for her. According to legend, anyone who drinks of it shall re-visit Malacca before they die. Hmmm smells like a romantic fairy tale already. But let's look at who Hang Li Poh actually is. Which Ming Emperor was she a daughter to? So I got into researching the entire list of Ming Emperors. Guess what? Not a single Ming Emperor's last name begins with Hang. In fact, all their last names begin with Tzu (pronounced Choo). So who is Hang Li Poh? An Extra Concubine? A Spare Handmaiden? Who knows? But one thing for certain, is that she was no daughter of any of the Ming Emperors. Gone is the romantic notion of the Sultan of Malacca marrying an exotic Chinese Princess. Sorry guys, the Sultan married an unidentified Chinese commoner.
By definition, (this is super eye-opening) there was a Hindu Malay Empire in Kedah. Yes, I said right… The Malays were Hindu. It was, by the old name Langkasuka, today known as Lembah Bujang. This Hindu Malay Empire was 2,000 years old, pre-dating Borobudur AND Angkor Wat, which came about around 500-600 years later. Lembah Bujang was THE mighty trading empire, and its biggest influence was by the Indians who were here to help start it. By definition, this should make the Indians BUMIPUTERAS too since they were here 2,000 years ago! Why are they marginalized?
Next question. If the Baba’s are part Malay, why have they been marginalized by NOT BEING BUMIPUTERA? Which part of "Malay" are they not? Whatever the answer, why then are the Portuguese of Malacca BUMIPUTERA? Did they not come 100 years AFTER the arrival of the first Baba’s? Parameswara founded Malacca in 1411. The Portugese came in 1511, and the Dutch in the 1600’s. Strangely, the Baba’s were in fact once classified a Bumiputera, but some Prime Minister decreed that they were to be strangely "declassified" in the 1960’s. WHY? How can a "native son of the soil" degenerate into an "un-son"? The new classification is "pendatang" meaning a migrant. Wait a minute, isn't EVERYONE on the Peninsular a migrant to begin with?
Of the 3 books listed, "Contesting Malayness" (about S$32 for soft cover) is "banned" in Malaysia; you will need to "smuggle" it into Malaysia; or read it in Singapore if you don’t feel like breaking the law. The other, "Kingdoms of the Indonesian Archipelago, and the Malay Peninsular" (about RM84) are openly sold at all leading bookshops; Kinokuniya, MPH, Borders, Popular, Times, etc. You should be able to find a fair bit of what I’ve been quoting in this book too, but mind you, it is very heavy reading material, and you will struggle through the initial 200+ pages. It is extremely technical in nature. Maybe that’s why it wasn’t banned (yet)… because our authorities couldn’t make head or tail of it? (For your information, if I wasn’t doing research for my film, I wouldn’t have read it in its entirety)
The Sultan of Kelantan had similar roots to the Pattani Kingdom making him of Thai origin. And what is this "coffee table book" by the Sultan of Perlis claiming to be the direct descendant of the prophet Muhammed? Somehow we see Prof Khoo Khay Khim’s signature name on the book. I’ll pay good money to own a copy of it myself. Anyone has a spare? In pursuing this thread, and having looked at the history of Prophet Muhammed (BTW, real name Ahmad) we couldn't figure out which descendant line The Sultan of Perlis was. Perhaps it was by the name Syed, which transcended. Then we would ask which of the 13 official wives named in the Holy Koran? or was he a descendant from the other 23 names of the nonwives? Of the 13 were (at least known) 3 Israeli women. Then you would also ask yourself, isn't Prophet Muhammad an Israeli himself? The answer is clear. All descendants of Moses are Israeli. In fact, the Holy Koran teaches that Moses was the First Muslim. Thus confirming all descendants to be Israeli, including Jesus and Prophet Muhammad. It is also found in Sura 2:58&59 which specifically mentions that the Torah and the Kitab (Bible) are Holy Words of Allah. But since this is not a religious discussion, let's move on to a more anthropological approach.
While the "Sejarah Melayu" (about RM 35) is available at the University Malaya bookshop. I have both the English and Royal Malay version published by MBRAS. Incidentally, the Professor (Author) was invited to speak on this very subject about 2 yrs ago, in KL, invited by the MBRAS. You can imagine the "chaos" this seminar created. There were actually many sources for these findings. An older Filippino Museum Journal also carries these migration stories. This migration is also on display at the Philippines National Museum in Luzon. However, they end with the Aeta, and only briefly mention that the migration continued to Indonesia and Malaysia,
Angkor Wat. Bali today still practices devout Hindu beliefs. The snake amulet worn by the Sultans of today, the Royal Dias, and even the "Pelamin" for weddings are tell-tale signs of these strong Indian influences. So, it was NOT Parameswara who was the first Sultan in Malaya. Sultanage existed approximately 1,500years before he set foot on the Peninsular during the "Golden Hindu Era" of Malaysia. And they were all Hindu.
but fully acknowledge that all Filippinos came from Taiwan. And before Taiwan, China. There is another book (part of a series) called the "Archipelago Series" endorsed by Tun Mahathir and Marina Mohammad, which states the very same thing right at the introduction on page one. "… that the Malays migrated out of Southern China some 6,000 years ago…". I believe it is called the "Pre-History of Malaysia" Hard Cover, about RM99 found in (mostly) MPH. They also carry "Pre-History of Indonesia" by the same authors for the same price.
PreHistory of Malaysia" also talks about the "Lost Kingdom" of the "Chi-Tu" where the local Malay Kingdom was Buddhist. The rest of the "Malays" were Animistic Pagans.
It is most interesting to note that our Museum officials invented brand new unheard-of terms such as "ProtoMalay" and "Deutero-Malay", to replace the accepted Scientific Term, Australo-Melanesians (African descent) and Austronesians (Chinese Descent, or Mongoloid to be precise) in keeping in line with creating this new "Malay" term. They also created the new term called the Melayu-Polynesian. (Which Melayu exists in the Polynesian Islands?) Maybe they were just trying to be "Patriotic" and "Nationalistic"… who knows…? After all, we also invented the term, "Malaysian Time". While the rest of the world calls it "Tardy" and "Late". It’s quite an embarrassment actually…. Singaporeans crossing the border are asked to set their watches back by about 100 years, to adjust to "Malaysian Time"…
But you may say, "Sejarah Melayu" calls it "Melayu"? Yes, it does. Read it again; is it trying to describe the 200-odd population hamlet near Palembang by the name "Melayu"? (Google Earth will show this village). By that same definition, then, the Achehnese should be considered a "race". So should the Bugis and the Bataks, to be fair. Orang Acheh, Orang Bugis, Orang Laut, Orang Melayu now mean the same… descriptions of ethnic tribes, at best. And since the "Malays" of today are not all descendants of the "Melayu" kampung in Jambi (if I remember correctly), the term Melayu has been wrongly termed. From day one. Maybe this is why the Johoreans still call themselves either Bugis, or Javanese until today. So do the Achehnese on the West coast of Kedah & Perlis and the Kelantanese insist that they came from Champa, Vietnam.
In a nutshell, the British Colonial Masters, who, for lack of a better description, needed a "blanket" category for ease of classification, used the term "Malay". The only other logical explanation, which I have heard, was that "Malaya" came as a derivative of "Himalaya", where at Langkasuka, or Lembah Bujang today was where the Indians were describing the locals as "Malai" which means "Hill People" in Tamil. This made perfect sense as the focal point at that time was at Gunung Jerai, and the entire Peninsular had a "Mountain Range" "Banjaran Titiwangsa", as we call it.
Morover, the fact that the first 3 pages claiming that "Melayu" comes from Alexander the Great and the West Indian Princess doesn't help. More importantly, it was written in 1623. By then, the Indians had been calling the locals "Malai" for 1,500 yrs already. So the name stuck…. And with the Sejarah Melayu (The Malay Annals in page 1-3) naming the grandson of Iskandar Zulkarnain, and the West Indian Princess forming the Minangkabau. Whenever a Malay is asked about it, he usually says it is "Karut" (bullshit), but all Malayan based historians insist on using Sejarah Melayu as THE main reference book for which "Malay" history is based upon. The only other books are "Misa Melayu", "Hikayat Merong Mahawangsa", and "Hikayat Hang Tuah" which is of another long and sometimes "heated" discussion.
The Mandarin and Cantonese accurately maintain the accurate pronunciation of "Malai Ren" and "Malai Yun" respectively till this very day. Where "ren" and "yun" both mean "peoples". Interestingly, "Kadar" and "Kidara", Hindi and Sanskrit words accurately describe "Kedah" of today. They both mean "fertile Land for Rice cultivation. Again, a name given by the Indians 2,000 years ago during the "Golden Hindu Era" for a duration of 1,500yrs.
I find this strange. It was during the "Golden Hindu Era" that the new term which the Hindu Malay leaders also adopted the titles, "Sultan" and "Raja". The Malay Royalty were Hindu at that time, as all of Southeast Asia was under strong Indian influence, including Borobudur, and
I also find, that it is strange that the "Chitti's" (Indian+Malay) of Malacca are categorized as Bumiputera, while their Baba brothers are not. Why? Both existed during the Parameswara days. Which part
of the "Malay" side of the Baba’s is not good enough for Bumiputera classification? Re-instate them. They used to be Bumiputera pre 1960’s anyway.
BTW, the name UMNO should be changed to UTANO the new official acronym for "United Truly Asia National Organization" . After all, they started out as a Bugis club in Johor anyway….
Instead of "Malay", I believe that "Maphilindo" (circa 1963) would have been the closest in accurately trying to describe the Malays. However, going by that definition, it should most accurately be "MaphilindoThaiChinDiaVietWanGreekCamfrica". And it is because of this; even our University Malaya Anthropology professors cannot look at you in the eye and truthfully say that the word "Malay" technically and accurately defines a race.
I told you all that I hate race classifications…. This is so depressing. Even more depressing is that the "Malays" are not even a race; not since day one. "Truly Asia Boleh" Endnote  Yawning Bread finds this claim a bit odd. While small
This is most unfortunate.
numbers may be found in Malaysia, as far as I know, most remaining descendants of the Cham people are today found in Cambodia, an estimated half million or more. Another 100,000 or so remain in southern and central coastal Vietnam. This was their original homeland -- the kingdom of Champa -- which was gradually absorbed into the expanding Vietnamese state from the 14th century onwards, with a final, crushing defeat in the early 19th century. Cham migration into Cambodia is believed to be related to this defeat. The Chams speak a Malayo-polynesian language and while originally Hindu, have over the last few centuries become about 80-90% Muslim. The rest remain mostly Hindu.
So, in a nutshell, the "Malays" (anthropologists will disagree with this "race" definition) are TRULY ASIA !!! For once the Tourism Ministry got it right…. We should stop calling this country "Tanah Melayu" instead call it, "Tanah Truly Asia" You must understand now, why I was "tickled pink" when I found out that the Visit Malaysia slogan for 2007 was "Truly Asia". They are so correct... (even though they missed out Greece and Africa)
The Investigative Content Analysis Research Group invites you to send your feedback/s (comments or counter arguments) to firstname.lastname@example.org