[teleforce]

>Stamford Raffles stands – according to the plaque attached to the plinth – on the ‘historic site’ where he first landed as an agent of the British East India Company on 28 January 1819 and, thereafter, ‘with genius and perception changed the destiny of Singapore from an obscure fishing village to a great seaport and modern metropolis’.

This is one of the greatest lies ever told, that Singapore was an obscure fishing village when the colonial powers came to "modernise" Singapore.

Read the history books, Singapore is bang in the middle of ancient super powers of India and China. It's has been and always has been for most of its history a successful entreport for several thousand years before the colonials first visited, and the later Chinese immigrants settled in Singapore.

The founder of Malacca, where the Strait of Malacca name originated from, was himself a prince from Singapore and at the time better known as Temasek.

The people who originally settled in the Malay Archipelago several thousands years ago were successful maritime explorers. Their descendents discovered and migrated to wider Austronesia including Madagascar to the west, and New Zealand and Hawaii to the east several thousand years before the colonial powers "re-discover" these places. They also who speak their ancestors derivatives languages until now, that at one time US government tried to ban.

[rayiner]

That’s a different kind of misleading narrative, the “$PLACE was rich in pre-modern times” narrative. Places decline. Heck, by the middle ages, Rome’s population had dropped to just 30,000.

[teleforce]

>Ptolemy’s maps of the world

I can assure you Ptolemy never been to India let alone Singapore.

But hey you just deleted your Ptolemy narrative, are you misleading a narrative?

Ironically although Ptolemy never been to Singapore it's apparently recorded in his book as Sabana [1]. Perhaps that the reason you deleted your Ptolemy entry.

It's also recorded in ancient Chinese record in the 3rd CE Chinese traveller's record describing an island at the same location called Pú Luó Zhōng a transcription of Singapore's early Malay name Pulau Ujong, literally meaning Tip End Island because it's located at the southern most tip of Malaysian Peninsular.

The famous Indian Emperor Chola also said to briefly conquer Singapore/Temasek in the 11th CE [1].

Singapore by any definition for the past two thousands years was not an obscure fishing village. It's always has been a bustling metropolitan with international entreport status. Anyone who said otherwise is lying through their teeth and pushing their own wicked narrative.

[1] Early history of Singapore:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Early_history_of_Singapore

[rayiner]

I edited because I realized Rome was a much easier example. But at least according to Wikipedia, chittagong was one of the major seaports of the ancient world and appeared on Ptolemy’s world map: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Chittagong. The map was based on Greek knowledge of Asia through trade. But Ptolemy also described the Malay peninsula.

As to your other point, again, you’re overlooking that places change over time. The Arabs built a huge civilization a thousand years ago. But by the 19th century, there wasn’t much left.

What was the population of what is now Singapore when Raffles landed there? Wikipedia says that under the Sultanate the population was under 1,000. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Singapore

[teleforce]

>As to your other point, again, you’re overlooking that places change over time

Not much change for Singapore, I know this because I learnt my history and geography properly, I hope you too.

Strait of Malacca has always been the busiest maritime trade route in the world continously since recorded history even until now, and at the heart of it is Singapore Strait where Singapore or Temasek is located.

Even until now most of the world's trade are performed via maritime route even with advent of aircraft, and guess what most of these trades when through Malacca and Singapore Straits. Maritime industry called these Straits the world's busiest trading choke-point. I'm not even exxagerating to say that Strait of Hormuz is nothing compared to this chokepoint, especially in the ancient time.

On top of that, more than quarter of the world's population since recorded history are living in China and India, and in between these two most populous nations are connected via maritime sea route through Straits of Malacca and Singapore.

In the old days, or most of our maritime trading history for thousand of years, we do not have engine for ships neither steam nor fuel, only for very short period recently starting from late 19th CE [1].

During most of our maritime history we use sails. People or sailors travelling between India and China, and returning back rely entirely on wind power that are based on alternate monsoon seasons. This where we got the famous saying of "time and tide wait for no man".

For one season (half a year) they used for travelling westward and another half season they travelling eastward. Either way, ancient sailors from Europe/India/China/Arab/Japan they need to stop over somewhere (read Malay Peninsular or Singapore/Temasek) while waiting for monsoon to change before returning back home. Since Singapore/Temasek at the end of this Peninsular, it's the most natural transit point for these ancient/modern sailors. Whenever you fly over Singapore take a look down to see these multitude of these ships. Although now in theory they don't need to stop for monsoon due to fuel, but realistically the ships still need for refuel/rest/transit/etc.

[1] From Sails to Steam Power:

https://www.marinmuseum.se/en/visit/exhibitions/from-sails-t...

[wahern]

By the time the Europeans arrived Singapore had long since declined:

> However, by the time the Portuguese arrived in the early 16th century, Singapura had already become "great ruins" according to Alfonso de Albuquerque.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Singapore

How far back and how much context is required for a simple narrative to not constitute lying? And for a narrative about national origin, is it not also misleading to insinuate that successive settlements and polities constitute a singular, shared history?

And Europeans were not the first colonial powers to land on and assert control over the peninsula. In fact, the incumbent Muslim powers the Europeans encountered had colonized the peninsula only a couple of centuries beforehand. Aboriginal peoples (pre-history "colonizers") still live in Malaysia, and they're still as isolated and impoverished by the state as they were before Europeans arrived. Malaysia even has its own Plymouth Rock-like monument (on the coast somewhere near Malacca, IIRC), and it's not where Europeans first stepped ashore. And it seems a little odd to presume Singaporeans would identify with the political and social history of their Malay and aboriginal predecessors when Singapore, a majority Chinese community, was kicked out of Malaysia precisely because of racist and xenophobic sentiments of many Malays.

The racial politics of Malaysia and Singapore are at least as complicated as in the US if not more so. I count South Africa and Malaysia as the two countries where racial politics are not only as complicated, but open and explicit as in the US, and like the US the relationship between European colonizers and the "native" groups constitutes only a portion of that complexity. Many other countries have similarly diverse groups, but usually one group is unchallenged in its power and there's very little open discourse about the subject. But contemporary anti-colonial rhetoric whitewashes (figuratively and literally) all of this.

[hirako2000]

Not sure about Singapore but Malaysia's racism is not complicated. It is discrimination into law. It makes things rather clear. About discourse of course there is not discussion to have.

[mansarip]

a major factor is the lack of societal assimilation.

with separate schooling systems, many Malaysians grow up in ethnic silos, which fundamentally hinders national unity even beyond any legal framework

[SanjayMehta]

The most amusing part of Malaysia's discrimination is in the term "bhumiputra," which is Sanskrit for "son of the soil," but today it's used for Malay muslim.

All these lands were Dharmic originally, all the way to Japan, before the various cults arrived.

[hirako2000]

Just look historicaly. Sorry of you feel entitled to whatever land.

[SanjayMehta]

I don't feel entitled to anything. I'm just pointing out facts. You reveal more about your mindset with your comments. And your downvotes.

[hirako2000]

We are all migrants. No exception.

[teleforce]

>Aboriginal peoples (pre-history "colonizers")

What nonsense, colonizers do not live and settle there for thousand of years. Would you called majority Japanese now a colonizers since the originally come from Korea/China and before them they were people there?

>Singapura had already become "great ruins" according to Alfonso de Albuquerque.

Albuquerque was the first European colonial who conquered Malacca in the early 16th CE, later Dutch and then British. They all came because they wanted to bypass what they considered "trading bottleneck" created by Ottoman, the most powerful maritime empire in the Mediterranean and Europe for many centuries.

The local authorities most probably very well deployed a typical scorched-earth strategy to prevent the Albuquerque to fully utilize Singapore infrastructure. The British did exactly this to most part of Singapore including totally damaging the very important causeway when the were defeated by Japanese in the mid 20th CE. Fun facts, the world busiest causeway still not return to the its original sophisticated design with elegant pass-thru water design until today, thus pollution side effect are still happening and not being solved [2].

[1] Scorched earth:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scorched_earth

[2] Why Singaporeans Are Fleeing to Malaysia Every Weekend | AB Explained [video]:

https://youtu.be/vUWOhAs5rTs

[wahern]

> Would you called majority Japanese now a colonizers since the originally come from Korea/China and before them they were people there?

Depending on context, yes, especially considering that (AFAIU) there still exist identifiable (socially, not just genetically) ethnic groups on the Japanese archipelago who predate that colonization event, and who still experience forms of ostracization typical of such colonization. There'd be no cognitive dissonance for me because I refuse to internalize a definition of colonialism that tacitly presumes European exceptionalism and supremacy through a sort of reverse White Man's Burden logic of moral accountability and historical criticism.

For the same reason, I recognize that groups we (i.e. westernized, globalist, cosmopolitan, what-have-you types) typically call aboriginal in a homogenizing, undifferentiating manner were often colonizers themselves thousands of years ago, displacing other aboriginal groups that may or may not still exist today. There are multiple such groups in Southeast Asia. And the first such modern human aboriginal group may have colonized an area occupied by pre-modern, archaic humans. (Or possibly vice versa!)

Buying into the logic of modern anti-colonialism critical theory is not required to appreciate and criticize the harms European colonization inflicted and continues to inflict. But rejecting that logic might be a prerequisite to recognizing and appreciating the exact same dynamics and harms that played out and still play out today among non-European ethnic groups.

[BurningFrog]

Here is a piece of history trivia. Not trying to have an argument.

> they wanted to bypass what they considered "trading bottleneck" created by Ottoman

The Ottomans didn't exactly close the Silk Road, but they made it harder and more expensive to use it.

But the major reason for the maritime routes taking over the cargo traffic was that it's much more efficient to sail to Asia with your cargo than to walk it on camels.

So when the Portugese found the way around Africa and landed in Calcutta on May 20 1498, the trade patterns changed forever.

[teleforce]

>So when the Portugese found the way around Africa and landed in Calcutta on May 20 1498, the trade patterns changed forever.

This new route discovery actually significantly increased the importance of Strait of Malacca and Singapore, not decreasing it.

Actually even before that important turning point event, the European already knew about about the importance of Strait of Malacca including both the metropolis Malacca and Singapore/Temasek. The is one famous quote by a 16th CE Portuguese explorer Tomé Pires, who declared: "Whoever is lord of Malacca has his hand on the throat of Venice".

To say that Singapore was an obscure fishing village is disengenious by the colonial powers and those believing this wicked narrative are in denial.

My once top comment about this "elephant in the room" has been downvoted to oblivion, but hey c'est la vie. There's a very popular saying, "you can fool some people all of the time, and all people some of the time, but you simply cannot fool all of the people all of the time".

There's also a narrative that if the tea via land it's called chai and if if the via sea it's called tea [1].

The Ottoman controlled both the land and sea route to Europe creating the trading bottleneck from the European perspective for many centuries to the far East, they never close it. Thats's why both Dutch and British created their very own East India Companies about the same time around 1600 CE as the vehicles to trade in Asia once they found the new trading route around Africa to Asia. Due to their highly profitable business endeavour, their governments willingly become the side-kick colonizers for their new companies and becoming complicit to wrestle and overcome any countries that refused to their own unfair business arrangements, terms and conditions including trading monopolies.

[1] Tea if by sea, cha if by land: Why the world only has two words for tea (317 comments):

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16129454

[2] Dutch East India Company:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dutch_East_India_Company

[3] East India Company:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/East_India_Company

[freewestpapua]

> The people who originally settled in the Malay Archipelago several thousands years ago were successful maritime explorers.

That comment upset me as a Melanesian. I'm sorry, but I need to challenge the above statement as it is factually incorrect. What you are claiming is widely spread in a politicized way in Malaysia and Indonesia, and in a similar but different context in Thailand and Phillipines. Firstly, I'm sure you know that the actual original first peoples (called as "orang asli negrito" or "sakai" (derogatory) by "Malay" settlers) are Melanesian/Negrito/Aboriginal tribes. Again, Malay settlers are not the the 'people who originally settled' as you claimed, they took the land from Melanesians. To be precise, the original people are MT Haplogroup P, MT Haplogroup M/sub-R, Y Haplogroup K/F. They have predominantly jet black skin and curly hair or straight hair in the case of some Aboriginal tribes in Australia. These are the genuine first peoples. They were in South and South East Asia, Papua and Australia first prior to the Toba eruption 70ka ago. Today, they have been mostly genocided by 'Malay' (sometimes used to cloud the term Austronesian term) settler populations. You can see this process happening even today in West Papua where 'Malay' soldiers and settlers brought over from Java, Indonesia are genociding Melanesian men in West Papua and taking over their land. The indigenous Melanesians are now a minority in their own land. There's brutal horific videos you can find online of Javanese settlers attacking and skinning a Melanesian man alive inside an oil drum. Truly barbaric stuff. It is a slow genocide but you don't hear much about it, probably because the mines of Freeport McMoran and Grassburg supply a huge chunk of the copper/gold that's key for EV and other modern technologies. That's as much time as I can spend on communicating this right now. I hope this information will help you and others correct your misunderstanding and stop spreading such disingenous claims intended to enable land grab by settlers. Thank you.

[teleforce]

Naturally they inter-married, the first wave from out of Africa people (e.g Perak man) and the second wave from the Taiwan diaspora [1]. This as you probably know happened over many thousands of years.

The word one to ten in most Austronesian countries from Madagascar to Hawaii, spanning more than 17,000 km or 10,000 miles (about half of earth's perimeter of 40,000 km). These countries main languages including Malagasy, Malay, Indonesian, Javanese, Tagalog, Sulu, Palau (Micronesia), NZ Maori, Hawaii (Polynesia), etc are very similar. In particular, "Lima" meaning five/hand is the common and signature Malay/Austronesian world, even in Hawaii.

Based on your throw away name, most probably you're from Papua Island, you probably know that one of its original main languages, apart from the recent colonial based Tok Pisin, is the Malay Austronesian based Hiri Motu [2].

>Today, they have been mostly genocided by 'Malay' (sometimes used to cloud the term Austronesian term) settler populations.

What nonsense, as they said the proof is in the pudding. If genocide happened as you claimed most of these people are gone but they're everywhere. Please check Borneo Island for example, ruled by the Malay Brunei Kingdom for several centuries until the colonial Brooke the White Rajah came. This third largest Island in the world probably has the most diverse demographic population of indigenous peoples in the world [3].

Fun facts, as comparison the Champa Malay people were genocided by the Vietnamese warlords mainly by the Nguyen lords. They controlled majority of Vietnam for about two thousands years but now you hardly find this Champa Malay people, similar to what happened in muslim in Spain. The highly contested South Chinese Sea original name was Champa Sea [4].

>I hope this information will help you and others correct your misunderstanding and stop spreading such disingenous claims intended to enable land grab by settlers.

Since we are in the Singapore topic, by your own definition of land grab by settlers, the Chinese immigrants where the first PM LKY are from, that constitute majority of Singaporean were performing land grab by settlers because just 200 years ago majority were Malay?

[1] Asia’s secret World Heritage site:

https://www.bbc.com/travel/article/20160518-malaysias-11000-...

[2] Hiri Motu:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hiri_Motu

[3] Borneo:Demographics:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Borneo#Demographics

[4] The Cham: Descendants of Ancient Rulers of South China Sea Watch Maritime Dispute From Sidelines:

https://www.nationalgeographic.com/science/article/140616-so...

[freewestpapua]

> Naturally they inter-married,

Earlier you claimed 'originally settled by Malays' now you're saying Malays inter-married with the actual indigenous population. That's like saying European Americans inter-married with actual native population and therefore European Americans are now the first peoples in America. I'm unsure if it is worth discussing further with someone that would manipulate facts in this way.

I'll also ask you to google about Y-haplogroup and MT-haplogroup statistics to see how it shows the disappearance of male Melanesian contribution to the population in Phillipines, Indonesia, Malaysia, Thailand. Countries like Malaysia and Indonesia had official policies even going on today where indigenous Melanesian women were targeted to be impregnated by settler 'Malay Muslim' men. For example:

https://www.thestar.com.my/news/nation/2006/06/27/incentives... 'Kelantan will offer RM10,000 to each Muslim preacher who marries an orang asli woman and naturally converts her'

I noticed you refused to address what is happening in West Papua.

Sadly, I think our conversation can't really continue effectively since you're starting to bring in unrelated topics like Spain and then you started talking about 'land grab by Chinese immigrants in Singapore' which is unrelated to the claims you originally made. Again, I sought to correct your statement claiming 'originally settled by Malays' which I notice you've now softened to 'Malays intermarried with the actual indigenous people'. I think that's the extent of the possible communication with you.

[teleforce]

>Earlier you claimed 'originally settled by Malays' now you're saying Malays inter-married with the actual indigenous population.

I said what you have quoted of me previously:

"The people who originally settled in the Malay Archipelago several thousands years ago were successful maritime explorers."

>you started talking about 'land grab by Chinese immigrants in Singapore' which is unrelated to the claims you originally made.

Please check your own comments regarding land grab (see below), that's why I asked you about that, I didn't mentioned about land grab earlier but you did. But since you have mentioned it yourself in the comments that's why I asked your opinion because we are in Singapore OP topic. If you do not want to answer the question that's fine with me, however personally I think it's very much relevant to the topic at hand.

>>I hope this information will help you and others correct your misunderstanding and stop spreading such disingenous claims intended to enable land grab by settlers.

[freewestpapua]

> "The people who originally settled in the Malay Archipelago several thousands years ago were successful maritime explorers."

You are again attempting to claim that 'Malays' or perhaps you're trying to imply 'Austronesians' are the first people to populate Phillipines, Malaysia, Indonesia, Papua. I think it isn't possible to have a useful conversation if you are repeating that falsehood. That's the exact equivalent of claiming 'the people who who originally settled the Americas were succesful maritime explorers' in an attempt to convince everyone that Europeans and Native Americans are now the same thing.

I have to remind you again since you refuse to acknowledge the issue. What is happening in West Papua is horrific. It is what 'Malays'/Austronesians have done repeatedly (to different extents) throughout South East Asia and Oceania and the world has let it happen because Melanesian lives don't even make the front page when one of us got skinned alive by 'Malay' settlers. [1]

[1] https://www.hrw.org/the-day-in-human-rights/2024/04/02

[teleforce]

> What is happening in West Papua is horrific

I'm not sure what happened in West Papua but need to check that out, but what happened in Champa to Cham Malay people is even worst, they totally lost their country they resided for thousands of years to the north Vietnamese people, and being displaced to other countries like Malaysia, Cambodia, Thailand, etc while only very small minority still in Vietnam.

>You are again attempting to claim that 'Malays' or perhaps you're trying to imply 'Austronesians' are the first people to populate Phillipines, Malaysia, Indonesia, Papua. I think it isn't possible to have a useful conversation if you are repeating that falsehood.

IMHO, it's quite easy to settle this deadlock, get the original people of Hawaii Polynesia and Palau Micronesia for examples, to be properly tested on genetic ancestorial tracing to check whether they are partly decendent of the Perak Man community who originally settled in Malay Archipelago. As I've mentioned to you it's most probably inter-married but until then we can only guess.

[PearlRiver]

European powers had taken over shipping in that region since the 17th century because their sailing ships were superior to anything the locals built.