Sri Indra Perkasa Wijaya Bakti, founder of Kuala Lumpur

Previously, on another subject, that of the legality of a minister or his (her) department/officer suing a member or members of the public for criticism(s), I wrote that nothing would be more obscene than having such a minister or government department-officer using public taxpayers' money to sue his (her) master, the tax-paying member(s) of the public for criticising the department or the service (or non service) he (she) has not been satisfied with.

Malaysia's Best FM since 09 May 2018 

Well, there is a new axiom based on above construct of preposterous absurdity (or insult), wakakaka. Here it is as below:

Yes, nothing is more insulting to nationalistic-parochial-racial pride than to have a member of another race being lauded as the founder of one's own country (or place within it). That, my dear Bro, would be unbearably outrageous to one's jingoistic pride and honour.

Thus recognising, declaring and (or) saluting the founding father of Kuala Lumpur as Kapitan Yap Ah Loy or his Kapitan Cina predecessor, Hiu Siew, the first Chinese Kapitan of Selangor, would be annoyingly derogatory and disrespectful to bumiputera pride.

Kapitan Yap Ah Loy 

Thus, it is hardly surprising when I read in MM Online that Former mayor calls on DBKL to review who ‘real founder’ of Kuala Lumpur was.

The 'real founder' means two bloody Cinapek-migrants were not, wakakaka.

The MM Online's article says:

KUALA LUMPUR, Oct 1 — Kuala Lumpur City Hall (DBKL) has to conduct a review of Kuala Lumpur’s founding history following the discovery of new information, said former Kuala Lumpur Mayor Tan Sri Ahmad Phesal Talib.

He said this followed the release of a new book, titled Sutan Puasa: Founder of Kuala Lumpur by Abdur Razzaq Lubis who submitted some sound facts of Sutan Puasa being the founder of Kuala Lumpur.

He added that it was important to examine the facts on Sutan Puasa, a Mandailing merchant who was a prominent and influential person at the time, as it contradicted with the information found in Malaysian history books when stated that the third Chinese Kapitan Yap Ah Loy was the founder of the nation’s capital.

kt note: in case you don't know who the Mandailing are, Wikipedia tells us: The Mandailing is a traditional cultural group in Southeast Asia. They are found mainly in the northern section of the island of Sumatra in Indonesia. They came under the influence of the Kaum Padri who ruled the Minangkabau of Tanah Datar. As a result, the Mandailing were influenced by Muslim culture and converted to Islam. There are also a group of Mandailing in Malaysia, especially in the states of Selangor and Perak.

Mandailing couple from Pakantan, Sumatra 

He was speaking to Bernama after an intellectual discussion with Abdur Razzaq, who is the author of Sutan Puasa: Founder of Kuala Lumpur at DBKL, here today.

He said DBKL had previously had no “solid” information to verify if Sutan Puasa was the founder of Kuala Lumpur, but with the book,it now had more information to refer to.

The 615-page book presents new information on the founding of Kuala Lumpur, accompanied by documents with maps and old pictures.

Abdur Razzaq in the book also discussed some names described as the founding fathers of Kuala Lumpur including Yap Ah Loy, Hiu Siew, the first Chinese Kapitan and Raja Abdullah, who was a chieftain from Klang. — Bernama.

For meaning of 'founder', I refer you to the Star article written by Dr Ranjit Singh Malhi last year titled The history of Kuala Lumpur's founding is not as clear cut as some think.

In the above, Dr Ranjit ........ clarified that Sutan Puasa had no authority to sanction (i.e. provide official approval) the appointment of each Kapitan Cina although his support was sought and deemed important in the said appointment.

The authority to officially appoint the Kapitan Cina of Kuala Lumpur was vested either in the Malay district chief of Klang or the ruler of Selangor himself.

According to J. M. Gullick, Hiu Siew obtained recognition as the first Kapitan Cina of Kuala Lumpur from the Malay chief of Klang with the assistance of Sutan Puasa.

In the case of Yap Ah Loy, he was officially installed as the third Kapitan Cina of Kuala Lumpur by Raja Mahdi, the Malay district chief of Klang.

Yap Ah Loy was given a seal of office and the Malay title, “Sri Indra Perkasa Wijaya Bakti”.

Dr Ranjit further wrote:To determine the true founder of Kuala Lumpur, one first needs to define the term “founder”.

If it refers to “originator”, “establisher” or as stated by Sharon A. Carstens, as “the first important person on the scene”, the founder of Kuala Lumpur is arguably Hiu Siew.

At the behest of Sutan Puasa, Hiu Siew and his business partner, Ah Sze left Lukut around 1859 and settled at a place near the confluence of the Klang and Gombak rivers (heart of Kuala Lumpur).

They established a trading post comprising a few huts after clearing the jungle – which as stated by S.M. Middlebrook – became known as Kuala Lumpur.

In a similar vein, Gullick states that this trading post marks “the origin of Kuala Lumpur itself”.

According to Frank Swettenham, Kuala Lumpur in 1872 was a “purely Chinese village, consisting of two rows of adobe-built dwellings, thatched with palm leaves.”

If the term “founder” refers to “builder”, “prime mover” or in the words of Carstens as “the person who expended the most effort in early years to build and develop the city”, the founder of Kuala Lumpur is undoubtedly Yap Ah Loy, the third Kapitan Cina of Kuala Lumpur.

All historians worth their salt will admit that Yap Ah Loy was primarily responsible for transforming Kuala Lumpur from a mining village into a leading commercial and mining centre after it was largely destroyed during the Selangor Civil War (1867-1873).

He played a major role in rebuilding Kuala Lumpur; virtually kept it free of crime; built cart-roads to the mines in the vicinity; and imported thousands of Chinese labourers to work in his mines and other enterprises.

As aptly stated by Gullick, “Down to 1879, Yap Ah Loy was Mr Kuala Lumpur.”

He adds further that Yap Ah Loy raised Kuala Lumpur “from an obscure mining village to become the most important town in the Malay Peninsula.”

Sutan Puasa was NEITHER an “originator” NOR a “prime mover” in the origins and development of Kuala Lumpur.

He lived near the mining settlement of Ampang whereas Kuala Lumpur grew from the original trading post established by Hiu Siew (the first Kapitan Cina of Kuala Lumpur) and his business partner, Ah Sze a fact clearly ascertained by both Middlebrook and Gullick.

In terms of developing Kuala Lumpur, Sutan Puasa (a tin trader and merchant) pales in comparison with Yap Ah Loy who in the words of Gullick was a “leader in war, an administrator and a mining magnate”.

What irks me most is the current official, albeit unsubstantiated, version of the founding of Kuala Lumpur as portrayed in Kuala Lumpur’s official tourism website: “Kuala Lumpur was founded in 1857 by a member of the Selangor royal family, Raja Abdullah, who was the representative of the Yam Tuan who administered Klang.

“Together with Raja Jumaat of Lukut and 87 Chinese workers, he came to explore the district in search for tin ore.

“After travelling up the Klang River to reach its confluence with the Gombak River, they made their way through deep jungle and found tin near Ampang.

“That moment marked the beginning of Kuala Lumpur’s development.”

To the best of my knowledge, there is no historical evidence at all to prove that both of them indeed accompanied these Chinese tin miners to Ampang. According to Gullick, the Chinese tin miners were accompanied by a “Malay agent of the district chief of Klang”.

As Malaysians, we should be proud of our rich heritage and multi-cultural society.

To my mind, distorting history is an intellectual crime.

In this regard, we should all be committed to the writing of Malaysian history that is accurate, generally objective, and well-balanced that can contribute to the ultimate goal of creating a united and prosperous “Bangsa Malaysia”.

Obviously Dr Ranjit Singh Malhi was damn pretty pissed off by historical revisionism - historical revisionism means re-interpreting historical records to the revisionist's preference.

Some conservative Japanese have been and still are notorious for their love for historical revisionism where, one example, their invasion and occupation of most of Asia during WWII have been re-written as just 'advancement into Asia on the invitations of the local population', wakakaka.

And of course the Rape of Nanjing did NOT occur, or if it did, the civilians killed there were very small.

But as I mentioned at the very start, it would be unbearably outrageous to nationalistic bumiputera pride to have a Chinese, whether Hiu Siew or Yap Ah Loy, being lauded as the founder of Kuala Lumpur.

Some conservative Malays are exactly like their conservative Japanese counterparts, keen to revise history as it had occurred, to neutralise the source of annoyingly derogatory and disrespectful hurt to bumiputera pride (or shame to the Japs in their historical revision fo WWII).

Hence we see either a push to recognise Raja Abdullah or Sutan Puasa or Raja Busu (see below) as the "real" founder of Kuala Lumpur rather than a couple of Cinapek migrants from Tiongsan.

This is NOT the first time such a 'revision' has been raised. I recall an incident many many many years back when there was a proposal from a Malay group (no, not Perkasa which didn't exist yet) to knock out the name of Yap Ah Loy from being associated with Kuala Lumpur.

FMT - Don’t glorify Yap Ah Loy, says Perkasa (extracts):


PETALING JAYA: Perkasa has questioned those who credit Yap Ah Loy for the development of Kuala Lumpur, after a recent tribute to the Chinese kapitan in the form of commemorative stamps by Pos Malaysia.

Instead, the Malay rights group said Yap was involved in criminal activities in the city.

“Yap Ah Loy came to Kuala Lumpur much later. And his businesses were opium trading, prostitution and running gambling dens,” said Perkasa deputy president Sirajuddin Salleh.

He went on to attribute the opening of Kuala Lumpur to Raja Busu, a member of the Selangor royalty during the 19th century.

And if the current historical revisionism fails, expect to hear of another one in the future. Mind, there is an 'out' (face-saving) for those conservative Malay historical revisionists - the founder of Kuala Lumpur was “Sri Indra Perkasa Wijaya Bakti”, wakakaka.

But quite frankly, I believe the Chinese and Indian Malaysians (other than expert historians) DON'T give two figs about such nationalistic revisionism.