Singapore in the remote past. Il
Hsü Yün-Ts’iao, a Chinese historian of Southeast Asian studies, published this article in 1972 to challenge the widespread assumption—reinforced by Singapore’s 1969 sesquicentennial celebrations—that the island’s history began with Raffles in 1819. Drawing extensively on Chinese geographical and diplomatic records, he argues that Singapore has been a node in maritime trade networks for at least 1,700 years, with the earliest identifiable reference dating to approximately A.D. 231.
Summary
Hsü systematically traces Singapore’s appearance in Chinese sources from the 3rd century onward. He identifies the name “Temasek” (Tumasik) in Wang Ta-Yuan’s 1330 Tao Yi Tchih Lueh as “Tan-Ma-Hsi,” and in Cheng Ho’s navigational charts, noting that the Hokkien pronunciation “Tan-Ma-Siak” closely approximates the Malay form. He further identifies the Dragon’s Teeth Gate (Lung-Ya-Men) with Keppel Harbour, citing its appearance in Chau Ju-Kua’s 1225 Chu Fan Tchih and Chang Hsih’s 1617 Tung Hsi Yang Khao, and documents a Siamese raid on Tumasik recorded in the Yuan Shih for 1295. The strait was already a known waypoint for Chinese merchants by the Sung Dynasty (960–1279), when it served as a pre-Srivijaya trading stop.
The article’s most ambitious claim concerns the 3rd century. Hsü re-edited the lost Wu Shih Wai Kuo Chuan of K’ang T’ai (c. A.D. 231), a record of a Wu Kingdom diplomatic mission to the South Seas, and identified two fragmentary passages referring to a place called “P’u Luo Chung” at the extremity of the peninsula. He equates this with the Malay Pulau Ujong (Island at the End), the oldest known name for Singapore, and argues it corresponds to the island’s position at the tip of the Malay landmass. He also re-identifies the port of “Kou Li” (Coli in Ptolemy’s Geography) not with Chukai in Trengganu, as Braddell had done, but with Muar on the west coast of Johore, based on sailing-time calculations from Sumatra to Tenasserim.
Throughout, Hsü is polemical, correcting what he sees as errors by earlier authorities such as Sylvain Lévi and Paul Pelliot, and proposing that “Temasek” is a Greek loan word (a corruption of Damascus) rather than a derivation from Malay tasek.
Key Findings
- The name Tumasik appears in Chinese sources as “Tan-Ma-Hsi” (Wang Ta-Yuan, 1330) and in Cheng Ho’s charts, with Hokkien pronunciation closely matching the Malay form (pp. 1–2).
- The Dragon’s Teeth Gate (Lung-Ya-Men), identified with Keppel Harbour, is attested from 1225 (Chau Ju-Kua) through 1617 (Chang Hsih), and was treated as a political entity in Yuan Dynasty records (1320) (pp. 2–4).
- A Siamese naval raid on Tumasik is recorded in the Yuan Shih for 1295, and the Tao Yi Tchih Lueh describes the local population as pirate-prone yet home to Chinese settlers who had adopted native dress (pp. 1–2).
- Hsü identifies “P’u Luo Chung” in K’ang T’ai’s 3rd-century text with Pulau Ujong, the earliest known name for Singapore, placing the island in Chinese records by c. A.D. 231 (pp. 6–8).
- The port of Kou Li (Ptolemy’s Coli) is re-identified as Muar, Johore, rather than Chukai, Trengganu, based on sailing-time evidence from Sumatra to Tenasserim (pp. 7–8).
- The “Luo Yueh” state on the north shore of the Singapore Strait in T’ang Dynasty records is proposed to correspond to Malay laut (sea), linking it to the Orang Laut (Sea Gypsies) (p. 4).
Conclusion
Hsü’s definitive takeaway is that Singapore’s strategic position as a focus of maritime communications was recognized by Chinese navigators and diplomats more than 1,700 years before Raffles, and that the discovery of Pulau Ujong as the island’s oldest name vindicates four decades of his research into Southeast Asian historical geography.
Context
- The article was published in the JMBRAS to coincide with Singapore’s 150th anniversary of Raffles’ founding, directly contesting the “150-year history” narrative dominant in public discourse (p. 1).
- Hsü’s recompilation of K’ang T’ai’s lost Wu Shih Wai Kuo Chuan was published separately in 1971 in Singapore, forming the primary source base for the 3rd-century claims made here (Note 3).