The Hikayat Abdullah. .H. Hill. Chapter II: the founding of Singapore
C. A. Gibson-Hill published this article in JMBRAS Vol. 42 (1969), examining the dating of Munshi Abdullah bin Abdul Kadir’s first visit to Singapore and the reliability of his account of the settlement’s founding in 1819. The article argues that Abdullah’s well-known narrative contains a major inaccuracy—crediting William Farquhar alone with establishing Singapore—and that his actual arrival in the settlement was considerably later than he claimed, likely between mid-1821 and mid-1822.
Summary
Gibson-Hill identifies a fundamental error in Abdullah’s Hikayat: the claim that Farquhar single-handedly founded Singapore and that Raffles paid only one brief visit. Cross-referencing Lt. John Crawford’s diary and East India Company records, Gibson-Hill establishes that Raffles was present on two occasions in 1819—28 January to 7 February, and again 31 May to 28 June on his return from Acheh (pp. 109–110). The explanation for Abdullah’s mistake is straightforward: while Abdullah was in Malacca during the initial landing, the local Malay community knew Farquhar well but had little or no knowledge of Raffles, whose nine-day first visit was quickly forgotten. Farquhar’s prior reconnaissance journeys in late 1818 and the pending supplementary agreement of June 1819 reinforced the impression that he was the sole agent of the settlement’s creation (p. 110).
The more significant question is when Abdullah actually arrived. His own statement that he came “about four months” after the founding would place him in early June 1819, coinciding with Raffles’s second visit—yet if he had met Raffles at that point, he would surely have corrected his understanding (p. 110). Gibson-Hill then marshals a series of documentary contradictions: Captain Flint, whom Abdullah describes as already resident as harbour-master, was in England until the end of 1819 and did not reach Singapore until 24 April 1820; Captain Methven’s stone house, which Abdullah mentions as already built, was not ready until September 1820; and the first Chinese junk did not arrive until February 1821 (pp. 110–111). Johanna Hare’s letter confirms that the Rev. C. H. Thomsen, Abdullah’s travelling companion, was still in Malacca in August 1820, and the earliest references to Thomsen in Singapore date from May 1822 (p. 111).
Gibson-Hill concludes that Abdullah and Thomsen most likely reached Singapore between the second quarter of 1821 and mid-May 1822, making Abdullah’s “four months” claim irreconcilable with the available evidence. The implication is that Abdullah was absent during the entire critical founding period and was therefore “clearly so badly misled” about events he never witnessed (p. 111).
Key Findings
- Raffles visited Singapore twice in 1819 (28 Jan–7 Feb and 31 May–28 Jun), contradicting Abdullah’s implication of a single visit (p. 109).
- Captain Flint was in England until the end of 1819 and arrived in Singapore only on 24 April 1820, yet Abdullah describes him as already resident at the time of the founding (p. 110).
- Captain Methven’s stone house was not ready for occupation until September 1820, and was not converted into a police station until early 1823, yet Abdullah presents it as an existing structure (p. 111).
- The first Chinese junk (from Amoy) anchored in Singapore’s roads in February 1821, and only four arrived that year, contradicting Abdullah’s description of a port “crammed full” of shipping at the time of his arrival (p. 111).
- Johanna Hare’s letter places the Rev. C. H. Thomsen in Malacca in August 1820, and the earliest documentary reference to Thomsen in Singapore dates from May 1822 (p. 111).
- The supplementary agreement settling allowances for the Sultan and Temenggong was not signed until 26 June 1819, meaning Farquhar was still awaiting Raffles’s decisions when he left in February (p. 110, n. 5).
Conclusion
Gibson-Hill’s definitive takeaway is that Abdullah’s account of Singapore’s founding is unreliable precisely because he was not present during it. His persistent attribution of the settlement’s creation to Farquhar alone is not a deliberate distortion but a natural consequence of second-hand information gathered in Malacca, where Farquhar was the visible figure and Raffles’s brief visits had already faded from local memory. The article thus undermines the Hikayat’s value as a contemporary source for the earliest months of Singapore’s history while confirming its utility for later periods when Abdullah was a resident observer.
Context
- The article draws on East India Company records (EIC, Rec. L. 12:12), Crawford’s diary (typescript extracts made by Cmdr. C. R. Wylie in 1938), and Johanna Hare’s letter, all held in or accessible through colonial archival collections (pp. 109–111, nn. 3, 5).
- This piece forms part of a broader MBRAS editorial project to critically assess the Hikayat Abdullah as a historical source, published alongside A. H. Hill’s English translation of the text in the same volume.