Legend of the fall: History vs myth

Legend of the fall: History vs myth



6 Dec 2025 • 9:00 AM MYT


K.T. Maran
Social, Environmental & Animal Activist

Photo by Katie Moum on Unsplash


HISTORY is not a fairy tale; it is a disciplined study of the past, built on verifiable evidence, rigorous analysis and factual records. Yet, in Malaysia, the line between myth and history is often blurred, whether out of cultural pride or political convenience. The result is a national memory at risk of drifting from truth into comforting illusion.


https://share.google/GsV8tP7PvzmslD3qq NST


A recent controversy highlights this danger.


A lecturer in Arabic language and literature at the International Islamic University Malaysia, appeared on a podcast and claimed that


ancient Malays possessed supernatural abilities, including flight, and shared these skills with the Chinese. Such claims may attract curiosity but they trivialise the serious work of historians.


In response, Dr Sahul Hamid Mohamed Maiddin of Universiti Pendidikan Sultan Idris offered a necessary corrective. He stressed that “history must be grounded on verifiable evidence, not myths or fantastical tales”, labelling such narratives as pseudohistory – a false history “built on fabricated stories and imagination”.


This incident is not an isolated one. Malaysian historical discourse has long struggled to separate legend from fact. For centuries, the warrior Hang Tuah has been upheld as the ultimate embodiment of Malay loyalty and courage.

Yet, as scholar Kassim Ahmad argued in his seminal 1964 work, the greatness of Hang Tuah lies not in his reality as a historical figure, “but in his symbolic role as the collective soul of the Malays. To treat him as literal history is to misunderstand him entirely”.


Similarly, colonial scholar R.O. Winstedt dismissed the tales as “popular romance rather than sober history”. These voices remind us that a story can be culturally significant without being historically verifiable.


https://share.google/mUkmRfYvXL3bi130F NST



The Sejarah Melayu (Malay Annals) provides another case, recounting that Malay rulers descended from Alexander the Great.


As historian William R. Roff noted, the Annals were “a blend of myth, cosmology and political purpose, designed less to record events than to legitimise authority”. Yet, these texts are often presented uncritically in classrooms as fact rather than political mythology.


Even the fall of Melaka in 1511 is frequently mythologised. Schoolbooks dramatise tales of betrayal and heroism while the complex real causes – internal rivalries, economic pressures and technological inferiority – are glossed over.


As historians Barbara and Leonard Andaya argued, Melaka’s fall was a product of both external invasion and internal weakness, not simply the tragic loss of a golden age.


When we base our pride on unsubstantiated claims, we risk international ridicule, as happened when a Malaysian university paper on the “jong” ship was critically debunked by a French historian. When myth is mistaken for history, several dangers emerge:

Education suffers where students learn to memorise folklore instead of questioning sources and developing critical thinking. Identity becomes distorted where pride rooted in fantastical stories creates a fragile and false foundation for national identity, one easily weaponised for political division.


The scholarly credibility will erodes where serious scholarships are undermined, discouraging young researchers and damaging Malaysia’s intellectual reputation.


We lose the real lessons of the past, and a society blinded by myth is vulnerable to repeating its historical mistakes. Diversity of voices is suppressed, whereby a national narrative built on legend often becomes exclusionary, sidelining the authentic histories of all Malaysians.


Malaysia is not alone in this struggle. Other nations have successfully navigated the relationship between myth and history.


Japan once held that its emperors descended from the sun goddess Amaterasu.


After World War II, Emperor Hirohito himself renounced this divine status, transforming it from a state myth into a valued cultural heritage.


Britain still celebrates the legendary King Arthur but historians accept him as a symbolic figure whose value lies not in historical accuracy but in the ideals he represents.

India reveres the epics Ramayana and Mahabharata. Scholars distinguish their profound mythic narratives from historical reconstruction, honouring them as cultural touchstones, not literal records. These examples show that myths can coexist with history but only if each is recognised for what it is.


The way forward for Malaysia is to take the same path. Its authentic history is already rich and compelling: the maritime empire of Srivijaya, the cosmopolitan hub of Melaka, the resilience of its peoples under colonial rule and the multiethnic struggle for independence. None of this needs embellishment.


The way forward is clear: to teach myths as myths, valued as literature and cultural heritage, not as factual history. Malaysia must anchor history in scholarship, using archaeology, inscriptions and primary documents.


It must resist the politicisation of the past, which turns history into a tool of division rather than a source of unified pride.


As Kassim Ahmad wisely observed: “We cannot be prisoners of our own myths. To truly honour our heritage, we must see legends as legends, and history as history.”


A nation that builds on illusion risks collapse. A nation that builds on truth builds lasting strength. Malaysia’s history does not need wings to be glorious; it only needs the solid ground of honesty.


K.T.Maran Social, Environmental & Animal Activist