The first three rulers of Malacca
Wang Gungwu’s 1968 article in the Journal of the Malaysian Branch of the Royal Asiatic Society (Vol. 41, No. 1) re-examines the identity and chronology of the first three rulers of Malacca (c. 1390–1444) by turning to the primary Chinese Veritable Records of the early Ming dynasty. His central thesis is that R.O. Winstedt’s influential 1947–48 identification of Parameswara and Megat Iskandar Shah as a single individual who converted to Islam is untenable, because the Chinese imperial archives record three distinct kings who were each personally received by Emperor Yung-lo.
Summary
The scholarly debate over Malacca’s early rulers had been dominated since 1935 by Winstedt’s History of Malaya, which initially listed three rulers but was revised in 1947–48 to collapse the first two into one person after the publication of Tome Pires’ Suma Oriental. Winstedt’s key argument was that the Chinese annalists, not having met the Malay visitors or understood Malay, mistakenly recorded a name change as a succession. Wang Gungwu challenges this by demonstrating that the Chinese record-keeping system was far more rigorous than Winstedt assumed. The Veritable Records were compiled centrally from official archives, the emperors’ daily activities were meticulously documented, and foreign tribute missions received elaborate state ceremonies involving senior ministers and special departments (p. 15).
Wang Gungwu’s evidence rests on a detailed reconstruction of all twenty Malacca missions and royal visits to China between 1405 and 1435, tabulated from the Yung-lo Shih-lu, Hung-hsi Shih-lu, and Hsuan-te Shih-lu (pp. 16–17). The critical entries are the 1414 record of Mu-kan-sa-yu-ti-er-sha memorialising his father Pai-li-mi-su-la’s death, and the 1424 record of Hsi-li-ma-ha-la-che reporting his own father’s death and succession. Emperor Yung-lo personally received all three kings—at Nanking in 1411, at Peking in 1414, and at Peking in 1424—making it implausible that the court confused one ruler for another (p. 21). The 1419 imperial letter to Siam further confirms that the king who came in 1414 was understood as having “followed his father’s wishes,” reinforcing the father-son relationship (p. 20).
Wang Gungwu also addresses the one potential source of confusion: the transfer of the capital from Nanking to Peking between 1408 and 1421, which created a dual government. He shows that despite the logistical complications, the stream of foreign missions continued uninterrupted and the records of audiences remained accurate (p. 17). The fact that all three kings travelled to China aboard Cheng Ho’s fleets, and that Malacca’s strategic importance as a naval base for Indian Ocean expeditions gave the court strong incentives to track its rulers carefully, further undermines any suggestion of casual error (p. 21).
Key Findings
- The Yung-lo Shih-lu entry of 5 October 1414 explicitly records Mu-kan-sa-yu-ti-er-sha (Megat Iskandar Shah) coming to court to memorialise that his father Pai-li-mi-su-la (Parameswara) had died, and an edict was issued confirming his succession (p. 18).
- The Yung-lo Shih-lu entry of 20 April 1424 records Hsi-li-ma-ha-la-che (Sri Maharaja) bringing his consort and chiefs to court because “his father had died and he had newly succeeded to the throne,” with the audience held by Emperor Yung-lo himself (p. 21).
- Emperor Yung-lo personally met all three Malacca kings: Parameswara at Nanking in 1411, Megat Iskandar Shah at Peking in 1414, and Sri Maharaja at Peking in 1424, making a conflation of identities highly improbable given the number of officials present at each audience (p. 21).
- An imperial letter of 3 October 1419 addressed to the King of Siam refers to “the King of Malacca, Iskandar Shah” who “succeeded to the throne and followed his father’s wishes,” independently confirming the father-son succession (p. 20).
- The 1419 royal visit records the king’s name as I-ssu-han-ta-er-sha (omitting “Mukan”), but Wang Gungwu attributes this to scribal abbreviation when transcribing one of seventeen simultaneous missions, noting that the 1420 mission still uses the full form Mu-kan-sa-yu-ti-er-sha (p. 20).
- Sri Maharaja’s extended 1433–35 visit, during which he remained in China for at least two and a half years and was still present when Emperor Hsuan-te died in January 1435, marks the last royal visit to China; after 1434 no Chinese fleets sailed to Malacca again (p. 21).
Conclusion
Wang Gungwu concludes that the existence of three distinct rulers before Sultan Muzaffar Shah can “no longer be doubted” and calls for the correction of all history books in use in the country to restore Megat Iskandar Shah to his rightful place as the second ruler of Malacca (p. 22). His final chronology reads: Parameswara (Iskandar Shah), 1390–1413/14; Megat Iskandar Shah, 1414–1423/24; Sri Maharaja (Sultan Muhammad Shah), 1424–1444? He credits these three rulers with establishing strong foundations for the kingdom through skilful diplomacy and an enlightened trading policy, and notes that after thirty years of Chinese protection, Malacca was ready to fend for itself with “increasing confidence and success for the remainder of the century” (p. 22).
Context
- The article engages directly with the MBRAS’s own publication history: Winstedt’s History of Malaya (1935) and its revised editions appeared in the JMBRAS, making Wang Gungwu’s correction a significant intervention in the Society’s own historiographical record.
- The primary Chinese sources examined—the T’ai-tsung (Yung-lo) shih-lu (130 chuan), Jen-tsung (Hung-hsi) Shih-lu (10 chuan), and Hsuan-tsung (Hsuan-te) Shih-lu (115 chuan)—were compiled between 1425 and 1438 from the Imperial Archives, providing a near-contemporary documentary base for the period under discussion (p. 15).