Posts

Posted on

Freedom to Question, Responsibility to Prove: The Solehah Yaacob Controversy and the Historian’s Craft

Solehah Yaacob once claimed that the Romans learnt shipbuilding from the Malays

Dr Solehah Yaacob was formally terminated from academic service at the International Islamic University Malaysia (IIUM) on 27 April 2026, although the university only issued a prominent public clarification of her status on 23 August 2026. IIUM stated that she is no longer a professor at the university, does not represent IIUM, and may not use titles, positions, departments or other affiliations connecting her with IIUM in publications, publicity, social media or other public communications.

What makes this especially interesting from a history student’s perspective is that the controversy is no longer merely about whether her individual claims are right or wrong. It raises questions about academic freedom versus academic responsibility, disciplinary expertise, standards of evidence, peer review, and whether a university should discipline an academic for controversial scholarship.

Academic freedom is one of the foundations of a university. Scholars must be free to question accepted interpretations, challenge established narratives and venture beyond the conventional boundaries of their disciplines. Many important intellectual breakthroughs have occurred precisely because someone was prepared to ask a question that others had not considered.

But academic freedom must always be accompanied by academic responsibility.

This distinction is particularly important when scholars venture beyond their own fields of expertise. There is nothing inherently wrong with a linguist conducting historical research, just as there is nothing preventing a historian from engaging with archaeology, anthropology, epigraphy or linguistics. Interdisciplinary scholarship is not only legitimate; it is often essential to understanding the past.

However, crossing disciplinary boundaries does not mean that the methodological requirements of those disciplines can be ignored.

A scholar trained in Arabic language and linguistics may possess an important advantage in reading and interpreting classical Arabic texts. Such expertise can potentially uncover sources that historians or archaeologists unfamiliar with Arabic might overlook. But the ability to read a historical source is not the same thing as possessing expertise in historical methodology, archaeology, archaeometry, maritime archaeology or ancient Mediterranean and Southeast Asian history.

Each discipline has its own methods for determining what constitutes evidence and how that evidence should be interpreted.

This becomes especially important when making extraordinary historical claims.

If one proposes, for example, that Roman shipbuilding technology was derived from the Malay world, it is not sufficient simply to identify a passage in an old text that appears to suggest such a connection. A historian must first establish the provenance, date, authorship and context of the source. The reliability of the author must be considered. The terminology used in the document must be understood in its historical context rather than through modern meanings.

More importantly, the claim must then be tested against other forms of evidence.

What does archaeology tell us?

What does the chronology tell us?

What evidence exists for contact between the societies concerned?

What do surviving shipwrecks, harbour remains, inscriptions, maritime technologies and material culture tell us?

Are there intermediate societies through which knowledge might have travelled?

And perhaps most importantly: does the proposed chronology actually make such transmission possible?

This is where disciplinary expertise becomes crucial. Historical research is not simply the collection of old texts. Archaeology is not simply the discovery of ancient objects. Linguistics is not simply the comparison of similar-looking words. Each discipline has developed methods precisely to prevent researchers from drawing conclusions that the available evidence cannot sustain.

There is another important safeguard: peer review.

Before a major historical proposition is presented publicly as a credible reconstruction of the past, it should ideally be subjected to scholars who possess expertise in the relevant fields. A claim concerning Roman and Malay shipbuilding, for example, could reasonably require scrutiny from historians of the Roman Mediterranean, Southeast Asian historians, maritime archaeologists and specialists in ancient ship construction.

Peer review does not guarantee that a proposition is correct. Nor should it be used to suppress unconventional ideas. Its purpose is much simpler: to expose an argument to people capable of identifying weaknesses in its sources, methodology, chronology and interpretation.

A genuinely revolutionary hypothesis should welcome such scrutiny.

Indeed, the more extraordinary the claim, the greater the evidential burden upon the person making it.

This is why the controversy surrounding Dr Solehah Yaacob raises questions larger than one individual academic. Her recognised scholarly background is principally in Arabic language and linguistics. That does not disqualify her from researching ancient Southeast Asian history. But if she chooses to enter that field, her historical propositions must be subjected to the same evidential and methodological standards expected of historians and archaeologists working within it.

Academic titles carry authority in the eyes of the public. When someone speaks with the title “Professor” or “Dr”, most members of the public understandably assume that the statements being made carry scholarly weight. Academics therefore have a responsibility to distinguish carefully between evidence, interpretation, hypothesis and speculation.

There is nothing wrong with saying, “I have encountered an Arabic source that raises an intriguing possibility.”

The problem arises when a possibility becomes a conclusion before the intervening stages of verification have been completed.

This distinction matters particularly when discussing the ancient history of Malaysia and the Malay world. There is already abundant archaeological and historical evidence demonstrating that early Southeast Asian societies were sophisticated participants in long-distance maritime trade and possessed considerable technological and cultural achievements. Their importance does not need to be established by attaching them to spectacular claims that cannot yet be supported by evidence.

In fact, poorly supported claims can have the opposite effect. Instead of strengthening appreciation for Southeast Asian history, they risk allowing legitimate scholarship to be dismissed alongside sensational assertions.

Academic responsibility therefore does not mean discouraging bold ideas.

It means having the courage to propose them, and the intellectual discipline to accept that evidence must ultimately decide whether they survive.

That is how scholarship advances.

And that is where the distinction between history and mythology must always be maintained.

Posted on

Not Enough Birds in the Air – Revive the MiG-29Ns?

Two RMAF MiG-29Ns escorting the C-130H aircraft the author was in in 2012

At the recent Royal Malaysian Air Force Open Day at the Kuantan Air Base, a defence pundit managed to take several photos of about eight of the already-retired MiG-29Ns Fulcrum that used to be the mainstay of the RMAF, and an old question resurfaced:

“Should we revive the MiG-29Ns to combat status to add more airframes to our interceptor fleet?”

My question is, would it be economically viable in a 5th generation fighter environment? The answer is PERHAPS — but only marginally, and not enough to justify the cost.

PERHAPS, BUT

Upgrading retired MiG-29Ns would give RMAF extra airframes for QRA, training, aggressor work, or limited point-defence. A serious upgrade could add modern radar, avionics, BVR weapons, better fuel capacity and night capability; such a proposal was already floated in 2015.  

But in a 5th-generation fighter environment, the MiG-29N’s basic weaknesses remain: older airframe, high maintenance burden, limited range, limited sensor fusion, no stealth, and dependence on Russian-origin support. Malaysia is already moving on: the FA-50M programme is underway, with first aircraft due in October 2026 and delivery through March 2028.   The Defence Ministry has also said MRCA evaluation should begin around 2030 to replace F/A-18D and Su-30MKM assets around 2035.  

My view: do not revive the MiG-29N as a combat fleet. The money would be better spent on:

  1. FA-50M integration, weapons, simulators and spares.
  2. Su-30MKM serviceability and upgrades.
  3. Ground-based air defence, AEW/C4ISR, datalinks and electronic warfare.
  4. Preparing for a true MRCA/next-generation fighter decision.

REVIVE THE “SMOKEY BANDITS”

I actually think that reviving the “Smokey Bandits” aerobatic teams is a far more compelling proposition than upgrading the MiG-29Ns back into frontline fighters.

The Royal Malaysian Air Force already demonstrated what a fighter display team could achieve. The Smokey Bandits, formed in 2001, flew five MiG-29s and became one of the signature attractions at Langkawi International Maritime and Aerospace Exhibition. When the MiGs left service, Malaysia effectively lost its premier fast-jet aerobatic display team, leaving only the Kris Sakti performing with Extra 300Ls.  

A four-aircraft MiG-29 display flight could have several advantages:

  • Preserve a national aviation icon. The MiG-29 is arguably as iconic to Malaysian military aviation as the F-5E was in the 1980s. Its distinctive twin-engine smoke trail is precisely how the Smokey Bandits earned their name.
  • Pilot proficiency. Display flying demands exceptional formation discipline, precision and airmanship. Those skills translate directly to operational flying.
  • Recruitment and public engagement. Air shows remain one of the most effective ways of inspiring future pilots, engineers and technicians.
  • Regional prestige. Few countries in Southeast Asia field dedicated fast-jet aerobatic teams today. A revived Smokey Bandits would make LIMA even more distinctive.

That said, there are practical hurdles.

The biggest issue is sustainability. Even if only four aircraft were restored, RMAF would still need:

  • a stock of RD-33 engines and spare parts;
  • engineers qualified on an aircraft retired from operational service;
  • continued airworthiness certification;
  • funding for regular practice flights.

Given the current geopolitical environment, obtaining long-term Russian support would likely be the greatest challenge—not the flying itself.

If Malaysia were determined to revive the Smokey Bandits, I would suggest a different model:

  • Restore four MiG-29Ns to flying condition.
  • Base them at RMAF Kuantan Air Base, where the team originally operated.  
  • Limit flying hours to displays, ceremonial flypasts, national celebrations and LIMA.
  • Maintain them almost as “heritage aircraft”, much like several air forces preserve historic fighters rather than expecting them to perform operational duties.

Many air forces have successfully preserved retired fighters in this role. The Russian Swifts continue to display MiG-29s, while other nations have similarly kept legacy fighters flying to maintain aviation heritage and inspire the public.  

One idea I find particularly appealing would be to pair them with the incoming KAI FA-50 Fighting Eagle. Imagine a LIMA opening sequence where:

  • four restored Smokey Bandits perform a farewell-style routine,
  • followed by four FA-50Ms,
  • culminating in an eight-ship formation flypast symbolising the transition from one generation of RMAF fighters to the next.

CONCLUSION

It would honour the MiG-29’s legacy while showcasing the future of Malaysian air power—a fitting tribute to one of the most charismatic aircraft ever to wear Malaysian roundels.

The MiG-29N was a beautiful interceptor, but today it would be a nostalgic bridge too far. In a 5th-gen battlespace, RMAF needs networked survivability more than revived speed.

Posted on

PMx

PMII – Dato Abdul Razak bin Hussein

We have just celebrated the 68th anniversary of our founding as a nation governed by ourselves. I try not to use the term “independence “ because technically speaking, only Pulau Pinang and Melaka achieved independence from direct colonial rule. The agreements the British had with the individual Malay Rulers only created Protectorates out of the Malay States. But although the agreements regarded us as independent and sovereign nations, we were subjugated and the British officials behaved like colonisers. Oh yes, setting the historical record straight is a monumental task. For instance, Sabah and Sarawak were never independent nations prior to Malaysia Day. That’s a narrative put up by politicians and played every time a state election in those states is around the corner. So it will take political will to set the record straight.

Yesterday, a vehicle belonging to JPJ that was in the parade, carried a placard bearing a love message for a budak Koleq – PMX. But is Anwar Ibrahim really PMX? To answer that question, we have to go back to a 1959 story about two budaks Koleq. They were PMI, PMII, PMIII and PMIV. That’s four PMs, but only two budaks Koleq.

Not many know that PMI – Tunku Abdul Rahman – was a budak Koleq, albeit for a short while. But, he was. He left after a quarrel with a member of another royal family after a football match. I think that that was how it went. But he was more known as a Sultan Abdul Hamid College alumnus. We all know that he headed the Alliance Party and won a landslide victory in the 1955 elections before “Merdeka.” But as with any election, voters would quickly realise that election manifestos are not Bibles, and disenchantment with the Alliance Party grew. “Merdeka” was euphoric and put everything on hold, but as the date for the Malayan Federation’s first general elections loomed, Tunku realised that he had to go to the ground to garner support.

In order not to be seen as using his position as Prime Minister or abuse his office to go campaigning, Tunku Abdul Rahman resigned from office. Yes, he resigned. He did not go on leave. He stepped down on 15 April 1959 and handed over the Premiership to another budak Koleq – Dato (later Tun) Abdul Razak, who became PM on 16 April 1959. If you ask Google AI, it will say that that’s wrong and that Razak was only acting PM. But Google’s intelligence is artificial. Razak actually took oath of office in front of the Yang Dipertuan Agong as PMII – Federation of Malaya’s second Prime Minister. The latter even sent a telegram to the former, thanking him for the trust and confidence. The following is an excerpt from the New York Times, 16 April 1959, page 4:

MALAYAN RESIGNS AS PRIME MINISTER

KUALA LUMPUR, Malaya, April 15—Tengku Abdul Rahman relinquished the Prime Ministry of Malaya tonight. Tomorrow the Deputy Prime Minister, Dato Abdul Razak bin Dato Hussein, takes over. His tenure of office is expected to last only until general elections toward the end of August bring Tengku (Prince) Abdul Rahman’s Alliance party to power again and the Prince returns to Government leadership.

Tengku Abdul Rahman said that the change in the Prime Minister’s post would not mean a change in policies.

Dato Abdul Razak bin Dato Hussein, the incoming Prime Minister, is 37 years old, which makes him yet the youngest chief executive of a country in the British Commonwealth.

His predecessor resigned to devote himself full-time to campaigning in the first full Parliamentary elections.
(End)

So, Razak was PMII from 16 April 1959 until the dissolution of parliament on 22 June 1959, and remained as a caretaker PM until a new cabinet was formed on 22 August 1959, returning Tunku as PMIII. Razak, of course, became PM again (PMIV) from 22 September 1970 until his death on 14 January 1976.

Razak, accepting his Instrument of Appointment from the first Yang Dipertuan Agong, after taking the oath of office on 16 April 1959

There you have it – 59 years before Tun Dr Mahathir, another SAHC alumnus, became PM again (PMIX) – two budaks Koleq, Rahman and Razak, had become the PM twice.

The JPJ placard should have read:

“I Love You PMXII”

That’s for the other budak Koleq who became PM. The title PMX should go to that guy from Muar High School. The one after PMIX.

But whatever it is, that placard should really have read “I Love You YDPA XVII” because the parade is for His Majesty as the Head of the Nation. The Prime Minister is only the head of the Executive Branch of His Majesty’s Government. JPJ’s Director-General heads a department in His Majesty’s Government. No one else takes precedence over the Yang Dipertuan Agong.

That ends our history and protocol lessons for this session.

(Note: “budak Koleq” is a self-given term by students and old boys of the Malay College Kuala Kangsar)

Posted on

Kedah Tua: Nation-building should be based on facts, not racial polemics

2,400 years ago, people believed that the universe revolved around the Earth in a geocentric orbit. This belief — that Earth was the centre of the universe — was widely accepted until around 600 years ago, when it came to be understood that the Sun is at the centre of our solar system.

The current evidence on temples built in ancient Kedah indicate that only a small segment of Malays there at the time adopted Hindu-Buddhism

With the discovery of other galaxies, we now know that none of them move around a single centre. That is the current narrative — until a new discovery may come along to challenge it.

Recently, a protest was held outside the gates of a prominent public university against the organisation of a conference said to be discussing and defining the narrative surrounding ancient Kedah. The concern was that this narrative might be shaped by those who do not prioritise the interests of a particular race or religion.

Such fears are rooted in the opinions of individuals who have never been formally trained in the disciplines of History or Archaeology. As someone who has been specifically trained in History at a well-known local public university, I would like to explain why the protest was a fruitless exercise.

Evidence matters

Can anyone write about history? Certainly. You could even write a paper on the effectiveness of nuclear fission energy if you wanted to. However, there are several factors and conditions that must be fulfilled before your work can be accepted — especially by experts in the field. This includes the standards of evidence and sources you use, and how you interpret those findings.

Your sources must be empirical or academically peer-reviewed. If your references are merely social media posts, you may as well write a romance novel. You must adhere to ethical research practices and subject your findings to rigorous scrutiny by other experts to ensure they meet strict and credible academic standards.

If your writing is based on personal opinion, then it no longer qualifies as academic work. That is propaganda — or at best, baseless rhetoric.

Free from bias

Your research must also be free from bias. This means you cannot write to support one side or dismiss another. You must remain objective. We cannot fabricate a narrative and then create fictional evidence to support it. Historiography must be free from centrism of all forms — be it ethnocentrism, anachronism, political centrism, religious centrism, or other imbalances.

In the case of the aforementioned protest, it was driven by emotions rooted in ethnocentrism and religious centrism. Among the claims made was that the Malays of ancient Kedah practised Islam and not Hindu-Buddhism, as has been widely accepted.

However, there is currently no verified discovery that supports the claim that Malays in ancient Kedah practised a form of Islam or even an early version of it. We have discovered prehistoric human remains dating back to the Palaeolithic and Neolithic eras, such as the Pulau Pinang Woman (6,000 years ago), the Perak Man (11,000 years), and the Nenggiri Woman (14,000 years). Yet, none of these findings provide any evidence of Islamic practices — if anything, they suggest a belief system rooted in animism.

This also does not mean that all Malays in ancient Kedah were influenced by Hindu-Buddhism. Nearly all temples (candi) found in the Bujang Valley were built between the 4th and 13th centuries AD. They were discovered at ancient trading sites such as Sungai Batu, Kampung Pendiat, Pengkalan Bujang, and Kampung Sungai Mas. Only the temples at Bukit Choras and Bukit Batu Pahat were located slightly further inland.

All of them are small in size compared to Angkor Wat, Borobudur, Gedingsuro, or Welan temples. This suggests that the Bujang Valley temples served as places of worship for Indian and Chinese traders, and perhaps a small number of local Malays involved in international trade. They were not built for a large population of Hindu-Buddhist worshippers. In short, only a small segment of Malays in ancient Kedah adopted Hindu-Buddhism.

This is further supported by the absence of temples inland, including in the upper reaches of the Sungai Muda — a key trading hub — or after ancient Kedah declined as a major destination post-14th century. If the local population truly practised Hindu-Buddhism, more temples would surely have been found by researchers who have studied the area since the late 19th century.

Professors are not all-knowing

One of the individuals who frequently comments on ancient Kedah — especially Sungai Batu — is Professor Dr Nik Najah Fadilah binti Haji Yaacob, better known online as Professor Dr Solehah Yaacob. She is a professor of Arabic grammar at a public university in Gombak. She has not been formally trained in History or Archaeology.

I admire her dedication to studying history. And because she carries the title of “Professor”, many people understandably take her statements at face value.

In reality, a history graduate with a bachelor’s degree has greater subject knowledge than a professor whose field lies elsewhere. History students must study world history across various periods — from prehistory to proto-history, traditional history, and modern history. Professors, on the other hand, conduct focused research in their own specific fields, not across all disciplines.

This is why professors should understand the boundaries of their expertise. For example, I once had a discussion with Professor Emeritus Dr Anthony Milner, an Australian historian renowned for his work on Southeast Asia and Malaysia. His expertise is in traditional political history. He never claimed to be an expert in Malaysia’s proto-history, especially that of ancient Kedah, because that is not his area of study.

Therefore, I would prefer if Professor Dr Solehah would present her research to qualified experts for academic review, rather than promoting it on social media. Social media is not the place for academic validation. It would also be better if her research did not involve prophets unless she can provide credible sources. Otherwise, that is no longer history — that is propaganda.

As the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) said: “Whosoever tells a lie against me intentionally then surely let him occupy his seat in Hell-Fire” [Sahih al-Bukhari (110)]

Unity over division

Disputes involving race and religion serve no benefit. Why must we boast about our supposed superiority over other ethnicities when Allah SWT considers all of us equal? Must we Malays be arrogant and see ourselves as holier than others? Are we somehow greater than Allah SWT?

If someone we mock ends up embracing Islam, does that not make them purer and more free of sin than we are? But how will they ever do so if we continue behaving like this?

We must accept narratives grounded in recent discoveries. As academics, we should keep an open mind. All historical research and findings should contribute towards the strengthening of our nation and its people — not towards sowing division or conflict between communities.

If there is new evidence or findings, they should be presented for academic review by others in the field. If accepted, that narrative should be acknowledged. What are we trying to take pride in — a fabricated past, or a history built upon proven facts? May we all be spared from pointless actions. – April 14, 2025

Captain Abdul Rahmat Omar (Rtd) is the Malay Consultative Council Bureau of Security, Defence, Public Order and Martial Arts chairman.

(This post was first published by Scoop )

Posted on

Which Past Should We Preserve?

The Bukit Choras ancient Buddhist temple complex existed before Rajendra Chola ransacked the Srivijayan empire

The attempt by Nga Kor Ming to have Chinese new villages listed as UNESCO heritage sites has caused a tiff between the DAP and its partner UMNO.

The Chinese new villages were, in essence, concentration camps aimed at reducing and curbing contacts between the Malayan Communist Party terrorists and their sympathizers during the First Malayan Emergency (1948-60).

I agree with former Pulau Pinang Deputy Chief Minister and historian P Ramasamy who asked why are politicians and others merely concerned with rendering post-colonial historical sites under the umbrella of Unesco, or some other heritage bodies. There are sites in Kedah that have been discovered since the 19th century but have yet to be protected and recognized as UNESCO heritage sites.

The Bujang Valley in Kedah contains remnants of what is known as ‘Ancient Kedah’ that spanned from the Kra Isthmus all the way down to Beruas, Perak. It was a vassal state of the Srivijayan empire that was a confederation.

But, Ancient Kedah or Kedah Tua itself is subjected to claims and counterclaims based on racial and national supremacy. Recently, a friend asked me based on my elementary knowledge of the Pallava script as well as what I have learned from Ancient Kedah, what would be my most unpopular opinion of its history. My short answer would be “All of it,” and this will be my attempt at explaining the history.

WAS PENINSULAR MALAYSIA INDIAN?

No.

The Hindu temples in the Bujang Valley were constructed between the 11th and 13th century C.E (or A.D, whichever is the most familiar term to you). Even the Candi Bukit Batu Pahat, the largest ancient Hindu temple in Merbok which was thought by Quaritch Wales to have been constructed between the 7th and 8th centuries C.E, were constructed between the 12th and 13th centuries C.E, towards the end of the importance of Bujang Valley as an entrepôt.

The Cholas weren’t here in an expansion mode. Srivijaya was a Buddhist empire that was a vassal of the Sung Dynasty. It gave traders from China special preferences while taxing the ones from the Chola empire exorbitantly. Sick of this mistreatment, King Rajendra Chola invaded the Srivijayan entrepôts along what is now the western coast of Southern Thailand, Kedah, as well as the Srivijayan capital of Palembang in Sumatera in 1023 C.E and stayed for 66 years before, at least, the ruler of Ancient Kedah was restored.

The Cholas packed up and went back to India. By the end of the 13th century C.E, the Chola empire was defeated by the Pandyan.

There is no evidence of any existence of a major administrative or religious complex anywhere to support the theory of a Chola conquest in Kedah. Even P Ramasamy said that it was wrong to say that Cholas was an expansionist or imperial power in regard to the Malay Archipelago.

In terms of inscriptions, Pallava Grantha has always been the script for both Sanskrit and ancient Malay in this part of the world. The Devanagari script which was widely used in the Chola empire only existed around the 7th century C.E.

WAS PENINSULAR MALAYSIA HINDU OR BUDDHIST?

Neither.

The earliest evidence of Buddhism in Peninsular Malaysia are in Buddhist texts that made reference to two Buddhist monks coming to Ancient Kedah shortly after the third Buddhist council, which took place in the 3rd century B.C.E.

At the same time, however, the earliest archaeological evidence, found in the Bujang Valley, suggests the presence of a Hindu—Buddhist kingdom as early as the 2nd century C.E. From the 8th to the 13th century, the Malay Peninsular was under the influence of the Srivijaya empire, which was based on the island of Sumatera and which the Chinese monk I-Tsing described, in 671, as an important center for Buddhist learning with more than one thousand Buddhist monks.

But if we look at the locations of both ancient Hindu and ancient Buddhist temples, they were all located along or near the ancient coastline. Sungai Batu was an industrial port, Pengkalan Bujang, Bukit Batu Pahat, Kampung Pendiat, Sungai Mas were all entrepôts where traders gathered to make a living. Even Bukit Choras was located on the bank of an ancient river estuary.

Neither James Low, Quaritch Wales nor the modern researchers have found any evidence of the existence of ancient Hindu or Buddhist temples further inland. Furthermore, no temples were found to have been built in Ancient Kedah after the 13th century C.E, that is after the decline of the importance of Ancient Kedah as a maritime trading nation. This goes to prove that the majority of the population of Ancient Kedah practiced animism until the arrival and acceptance of Islam by the local ruler.

THERE EXISTED A GREAT MALAY KINGDOM THAT HAD TIES WITH PROPHETS AND SUPPLIED QUALITY IRON TO THESE PROPHETS

Very highly unlikely.

This would be in reference to the ancient iron smelting site in Sungai Batu , Merbok. This site was dated to around 4th century C.E. At least, that is what has been confirmed by samples collected during excavations performed there.

However, an outlier sample dates to between 535 B.C.E and 788 B.C.E was found, and has been the basis of claims that Sungai Batu is the oldest civilization in Southeast Asia, and that the site is proof that the Malays were a great race. This was used to counter claims that Kedah (and Peninsular Malaysia) was once Hindu under Chola rule.

Outliers are very common phenomena in archaeology. They can be caused by numerous effects such as contamination with older samples, inherent variation between different sources of carbon, differences in Carbon-14 intake by plants, and other factors. This is why archaeologists normally do not base any conclusions on a single date; there are instead various mathematical formulae for deriving a range of possible dates (rather than a single date) from a group of samples.

According to archaeologist Professor Dr John N. Miksic, who is Professor in the Southeast Asian Studies Department, National University of Singapore, the first known trading port in the Malay Peninsula formed in 4th century BCE. The site is now in a village in South Thailand called Khao Sam Kaeo.  This area at that time was probably inhabited by Malay speakers. It was on the east coast of the Peninsula. Artifacts there in addition to localy-made items came from India and south China (which at this time was still inhabited by people whom the Chinese called the Yueh, which can be transliterated as Viet).

He said that the oldest evidence of ports in Kedah appeared in the 5th century CE in the form of inscriptions. Radiocarbon dates from Sungai Batu span a wide range of dates, only one of which originates from the 8th century BCE. This could be an erroneous result due to random variation in dosage of radiation from the soil, the presence of old wood in a younger soil stratum, or just possibly the remains of very early metal working or other human activity. It does not however date any trading activity. The oldest pottery in Sungai Batu is over 1,000 years later.

I don’t feel supreme by knowing that the people of Sungai Batu left 50 or 500 or 500,000 or 2,000,000 Tuyeres behind. Unless there is a monument like the one in Bumiayu or Batujaya or Angkor or Ayutthaya, then treading on the grounds of Sungai Batu is similar to walking on the grounds where a demolished illegal pottery factory once stood.

I won’t even attempt to comment on the story of Abraham marrying a Cham princess, a story that was conjured up without any documentary or archaeological evidence.

SO, WHICH PAST SHOULD WE PRESERVE IF THERE IS NO ONE RACE THAT WAS GREAT?

Pallava the script came from the Indian subcontinent and was widely used here. Inscriptions using the Pallava script have been found in both Sanskrit and Ancient Malay. But to say that people in the Peninsular were Hindus, Buddhists or Indians because of the use of the script is as naive as saying Malaysians are Romans because we use the Latin alphabets.

If we look closely at the existence of the Hindu and Buddhist temples, as well as the Tuyeres left behind at Sungai Batu, the greatness of the people back then lie in their tolerance for each other. The temples were not large in size, but must have been enough for traders from India and China to pray in, while waiting for favourable winds to take them back to whence they were from. They must have been built to attract traders, just as how the government-of-the-day would create a favourable environment for investors to conduct businesses here. The Sungai Batu industry could not have thrived without local manpower.

The above points to only one thing – the great tolerant people of Ancient Kedah were ruled by wise leaders. That is the greatness of the people. That is what we should preserve and learn from. That is the narrative that we Malaysians should be proud of.

Posted on

Is There A Campaign Against Langkawi?

Sit and do nothing for cheap in Langkawi

I often travel to the islands off Peninsular Malaysia – to the East Coast islands whenever I go scuba diving, and to Langkawi to get away from KL-stress.

It is given that in general, prices of food and accommodation are higher on the islands due to the cost of transporting goods from the mainland, and that the number of rooms are limited, especially on the east coast islands.

The difference between Langkawi and the east coast islands of Perhentian, Redang and Tioman is that you have the luxury of choosing where to eat and where to stay in Langkawi as it is larger in size compared to the rest. If you stay away from the tourist areas, it can be cheaper than in KL.

For example, during the recent LIMA 2023, the five of us stayed there for nine days: two days before the exhibition started, five days during the exhibition, and two days after the exhibition ended.

The fully-air-conditioned homestay that we stayed in cost us only RM1,400 (RM31.11 per person per day). And it was located less than ten minutes away from the airport. It came with a washing machine, so we did our own laundry. There was hot water shower, too! It also came with Wi-fi and ASTRO, a full kitchen with microwave oven and a 250-litre refrigerator.

We also rented a Perodua Axia for the whole duration at RM90 per day (RM18 per person). we filled RM40.00 worth of petrol into its tank only once (RM0.90 per person per day).

For breakfast, we’d drive to the stalls at the nearby kampungs. Roti Canai Kosong would cost you RM1.50, Nasi Lemak with Ikan Bilis, Sambal and half an egg would cost you RM2.00. Lunch that consists of steamed white rice, Asam Pedas Ikan Pari, Mixed Vegetables and Sotong Goreng cost me RM15.00 with drinks. Dinner was about the same. That’s about RM35.00 per day.

The cost of living per day per person in Langkawi for us was RM85.00, flights excluded. Now, the above was during super-peak season.

Compare that to Pulau Perhentian Besar. A cheap accommodation (a room) would cost you around RM180 per night (RM90 per person). No TV and little else. A plate of Nasi Goreng Bodo (just fried rice and with hardly anything else inside) is RM8.00. Nasi Goreng Special is RM20.00. Maggi Soup is RM15.00. That comes to about RM122 per day per person.

Generally, it would be the same on Perhentian Kecil.

In Pulau Redang, Nasi Lemak is RM15.00. Half Boiled Egg is RM6.00, Toast is RM5.00. The rest are about the same as in Perhentian. A cheap air-conditioned room is around RM150 per night (RM75 per person), that would be as mediocre as the ones in Perhentian. A day would cost RM135 per person.

In Tioman, you could get a basic room at RM125 per night (RM62.50). A meal can cost between RM20 to RM40 per person (about RM80 to RM160 per day per person).

It costs RM74 return by bus to Mersing from KL, a six to seven hour journey. You need to go on a ferry to get to Tioman from Mersing which will cost you RM70 return., another 1.5 hour journey. That’s RM144 per person.

To get to Pulau Redang you would have to get on a bus to Kuala Terengganu which will cost you RM88 return (six to seven hour journey), and another 1.5 hour journey by ferry that will cost RM110 return. That comes to RM198 per person.

To get to Pulau Perhentian, a 8-hour bus journey to Kuala Besut can cost about RM100 return. It costs RM70 return from the jetty to the islands making the total travel cost RM170.

It costs RM90 return on a 7-hour bus journey to Kuala Perlis and RM46 return by ferry from Kuala Perlis on an hour’s journey. That makes RM136 per person.

You can also opt to go via Kuala Kedah. And if you have extra to spare, you can try other modes of travel. Plus, there is so much more than just the beaches in Langkawi! You can find out more about travelling to Langkawi and the things to do there by visiting this webpage.

Looking at the comparisons, Langkawi is definitely value for money compared to the rest of the islands. No doubt each island has its strengths and weaknesses, and there are business owners that charge tourists exorbitantly, but Langkawi has so much more to offer, and you have other alternatives to shop and eat there.

Thus, it makes me wonder why is Langkawi being subjected to negative publicity? Is it because the state government is administered by people who, headed by an outspoken Menteri Besar, are not aligned to the Federal government? That would be unfair – punishing the people of Langkawi for making their democratic decision.

What is democracy then?

Posted on

The Outlier Sungai Batu Is

Dr Shaiful Idzwan Shahidan pointed out that the sample that linked the Sungai Batu archaeological site to 788 BCE is an outlier

The Malaysian National Heritage Department (JWN) organised a full-day seminar on Ancient Kedah: Research and Dating Polemics in Sungai Petani on 4 November 2023. Among the speakers was Dr Shaiful Idzwan Shahidan, a consultant at USAINS Unitech.

Dr Shaiful Idzwan is an advocate of the Bayesian method in archaeology – an explicit, probabilistic method for combining different sorts of evidence to estimate the dates of events that happened in the past and for quantifying the uncertainties of these estimates.

In answering the polemics of research and archaeological dating especially related to the Sungai Batu Archaeological Complex (SBAC), he said that the radiocarbon dating of the SB2H site where the 788 BCE sample was found (sample 516413), should not be compared directly based on the depth of the spit because the level of the spit is different according to the actual contour of the site before being excavated.

Dr Shaiful Idzwan said that the dating obtained from the yellow plots is reliable because it is representative of the whole site from the beginning until the final layer of culture.

A chronological model of the SB2H site showing the calibrated dating of samples from the site is further evidence that the 788 BCE sample is an outlier.

An outlier is an observation that lies an abnormal distance from other values in a random sample from a population.

In fact, sample 516413 does not specifically point to 788 BCE as claimed, but has a range between 788 BCE to 537 BCE). However, he said that any finding needs to be adapted to the historical and cultural context.

In this case, the rest of the SBAC samples have overwhelmingly been dated to the 2nd to the 8th century CE. This range fits into not just the Bujang Valley narrative, but coincides also with the existence of other maritime polities such as Srivijaya, China and India, as well as nations that had once traded with Ancient Kedah.

A chronological model of the SB2H site at SBAC showing sample 516413 as an outlier

This narrative has been peer-reviewed and accepted by experts on Southeast Asian archaeology.

We are aware that historical narratives can change with new findings. HG Quaritch Wales, the man who discovered the Bukit Batu Pahat temple in 1936 dated the temple to the 7th to 8th century CE based on the data that was available to him during that era.

However, more recent scholars have revised that to the 12th to 13th century CE.

The onus is on the JWN to come up with a narrative that has been proven, peer-reviewed and agreed upon by experts in Southeast Asian archaeology. Else, the nation’s historical narrative will be laughed upon by other nations.

Posted on

Bukit Choras: Gem of a Find

A black slate stone with a 7th to 8th century CE Pallava inscription was amongst the most recent discoveries at Bukit Choras (courtesy of The Star)

Amongst the finds that renowned archaeologist Horace Geoffrey “H.G.” Quaritch Wales discovered in 1936 in the Bujang Valley was the Bukit Choras temple site.

Wales then dated it to the 4th century CE based on the shape of the type of mold used to make the basement of the structure (Wales 1940:7).

However, a recent excavation and research works conducted by the Universiti Sains Malaysia’s (USM) Centre for Global Archaeological Research (CGAR) and the National Heritage Department (NHD) that took place between 28 August and 12 September 2023 have discovered two near-perfect statues and an ancient inscription using the Pallava script.

According to The Star, USM CGAR senior lecturer Dr Nasha Rodziadi Khaw, who led the excavation works, said the finds from the temple site could date back to around the eighth or ninth century AD, which is the same as most of the temple sites in the Bujang Valley, and the development period of the Srivijaya Empire.

“The uniqueness of the temple at this archaeological site is firstly how it has been preserved, we can see that the condition of the walls in the north, west and south areas are well-preserved.

“Secondly, we found two human-sized structures made out of stucco… and the discovery of stucco has not been reported in the Bujang Valley but only in Sumatra and Java,” Nasha said at a press conference on Friday, 22 September 2023.

Nasha said based on preliminary research, there is a similarity between the temple architecture in Bukit Choras and that of temples in West Java and Sumatra, at the same time raising questions about the cultural relationship between Kedah Tua and other sites in South-East Asia.

He said the Bukit Choras Archaeological Site is considered to be special due to its isolated position north of Gunung Jerai, whereas the other archaeological sites in the Bujang Valley are mostly situated south of Gunung Jerai in the areas around Sungai Merbok and Sungai Muda.

He, however, said his team still needed time to do more research, perhaps over several years, and this must be done on-site before any conclusion can be made about the ancient site.

He also hoped his team can provide more information and data to add value to the history of Kedah Tua.

He added that the temple is also the biggest ever found in the Bujang Valley and it had interesting architecture.

What is more interesting is that the Pallava inscription used a 7th to 8th century CE script, but because it is believed to have been deposited at the temple during its construction, the inscription itself is much older than the temple.

Therefore, it would not be surprising if, upon completion of studies several years from now, the temple is found to have existed only between the 9th or 10th century CE, in consistence with the area’s trade with the Chola kingdom.

Similarly, an outlier sample caused the initial dating of the Sungai Batu site at 788BCE, only to be later confirmed by the former director of USM CGAR Datuk Dr Mokhtar Saidin to have existed around the 1st and 2nd centuries CE.

The Bukit Choras temple is said to be the largest temple discovered in the Bujang Valley. Although not as large as the Borobudur and Angkor temples, it would certainly be an archaeo-tourism attraction for visitors to the area.

We certainly hope for more discoveries to be found when excavation works continue in the near future.

Posted on

Making of a Martyr

Even without Sanusi around, the momentum created by his arrest cannot be stopped (pic courtesy of NST)

Sanusi is an intelligent person. What he lacks is finesse and decorum. There is nothing classy about him. Like other politicians, he forgets that he has been chosen to represent the voters to serve in HRH’s government. Not his government, not his party’s government. It is the Sultan’s government. He can have fights with others, but he should never drag the Malay Rulers into his quarrels.

But as crude and rude as he may be, he hits the right notes with the people of Kedah, and those in the Malay heartlands. He is right about asking for a fair compensation for not being able to develop the Muda basin to make Kedah more palatable to investors in order to create more job opportunities. He is also right in saying that legally Pulau Pinang still belongs to the Sultanate of Kedah.

The Malay voters see him as a fighter, one man fighting against the whole Federal government. The police may have the right to arrest him, but sending 20 men at 3am shows lack of tact on the part of the police. The timing was totally wrong no matter the excuse. They knew where to find him. All they had to do was wait and escort him to the courthouse.

After all, he had been charged on two counts which are bailable offenses. The Anwar administration, above all, should have known this. They have mustered lots of experience in this matter, being subjected to raids and arrests prior to 9 May 2018.

Now, Sanusi has emerged from the courthouse a martyr. Even if he is absent, there is no stopping the momentum.

Posted on

History Evolves, So Should Our Beliefs

Srivijaya was a maritime trade centre. Source - Anandajoti
Srivijaya was a maritime trade centre. Source – Anandajoti

In 1912, British engineer, adventurer, travel-writer and later, television show host Carveth Wells arrived in Pulau Pinang to do a survey for the construction of railroads and roads in the Malay Peninsula. After arriving in Prai, he saw several salt-water crocodiles on the shore. In his book Six Years in the Malay Jungle he mentioned how the locals believe that when a crocodile leaves the sea and enters the mangrove swamp, it turns into a wild dog.

That may seem absurd to us all now but that and other theories of spontaneous generation, such as dirty rags kept in closets will turn into rats, were popularly accepted for two millenia. It was people like Pasteur and others who provided new scientific evidence to disprove of those absurd theories.

CHALLENGING ESTABLISHED BELIEFS

Just as how those in my generation were told that Malaya was colonised by Britain and that Melaka was established in 1400, through new evidences obtained by the release of classified documents, we know now that we were never a colony of Britain and that Melaka was founded circa 1262.

New evidences can shake the core of our historical beliefs. There were so many things that we did not know about our “independence,” and we believed everything the school text books had told us. In the end we knew that the Federation of Malaya Agreement, 1957 was all about the transfer of executive powers back to the Malay Rulers, and then to be delegated to a cabinet of ministers chosen from the various elected representatives, who then replace the British officers to serve the Rulers and their subjects. Merdeka was just a political cry to rally the voters of Malaya to support the Alliance rather than the Independence of Malaya Party who first used ‘Merdeka‘ as its election slogan.

What the above had done was to change the whole perception of the formation of this nation. Then it answers the rude claim by a certain politician in 2011 that the policemen who died in the Bukit Kepong tragedy in were ‘British Dogs.’

SHAKING THE CORE

The late Tony Horwitz who authored the non-fiction book ‘Confederates in the Attic,’ a book addressing the American Civil War, was very thorough in his research and was considered to be one of the authorities of the subject. He visited virtually all the major battle sites.

One day he met anthropologist Paul Hawke at a major battle site in Shiloh, Tennessee and the latter shook his belief. Hawke explained that previous interpretations of the battle of Shiloh did not include one major artefact – the ground itself. The interpretations were made based on first hand accounts: accounts of Civil War veterans who gathered at the site in the past.

And as the New York Public Library narrated, the loudest, most influential, and most repetitive veterans—and the ones with the most to gain—spoke with writers and journalists and their accounts were taken as the true accounts of the event, and passed on to future generations in newspaper accounts and diaries.

But Hawke found that first hand accounts and reports did not match the written histories. After the battle of Shiloh, General Ulysses Grant ordered that the dead be buried on the line—meaning where they fell. As an anthropologist, Hawke went and looked for the burial ground and found that they did not align with generally accepted history.

The same treatment must be applied to the findings at Sungai Batu. If previous samples dated in 2009 were found to have originated from 788 BCE, yet later with more advanced and sophisticated technology found that they existed only a millenium later, the latter has to be accepted. Historical interpretations are not cast in stone. The latest findings would have to be peer-reviewed by others who are authorities in the matter before they can be accepted. And that process is already academic. It has been accepted that the Sungai Batu iron-smelting industry had flourished only after the Common Era.

CHARTING THE PAST FOR OUR FUTURE THROUGH TECHNOLOGICAL ADVANCEMENTS

With history evolving, through emerging technologies, new methods, narratives, and influences, what sense do we make of the attempts to tell the truth to others as it is seen through thoughts and biases? This is the question that we must ask ourselves and answer, as more and more evidences will be available to us that will change the narrative that we believe in today.

And it is only up to us as lay persons and academicians, to accept the latest findings with an open mind to bring to the present what has made us what we are today.