Needless move to alter history

The proposal to change the name of Melaka’s iconic St Paul’s Hill to Bukit Melaka has not gone down well, with locals and those in the tourism industry questioning the motives behind it.

THE fixation on hills in Melaka often arouses amusement and, sometimes, even intrigue. There are just too many places around the historical city named after “bukit” (hill).

While the origin of Bukit China can be traced to the first link between the Melaka Sultanate and China’s Ming dynasty, the stories behind the naming of Bukit Beruang (bear hill), Bukit Katil (bed hill), Bukit Piatu (orphan hill), Bukit Baru (new hill) and Bukit Senggeh (grinning hill) still evoke curiosity.

How about Bukit Melaka? Locals would most likely point to a housing area in Bukit Beruang called Taman Bukit Melaka. A Google search would show similar results.

It would take quite an imagination to link it to St Paul’s Hill, the state’s foremost tourist attraction and integral part of its historical heritage, as being proposed by the Melaka Museum Corporation (Perzim).

That is why Perzim general manager Mohd Nasruddin Rahman’s suggestion that St Paul’s Hill be renamed Bukit Melaka has piqued the ire of locals and those in the city’s Covid-19 hit tourism industry.

This ire has also spread through Christians in the peninsular as well as in Sabah and Sarawak, especially what he said in justifying the proposed name change.

“It is as if we are promoting the name of the church, which is there, ” the museum official was quoted as saying, according to news reports.

The truth is, the church is not there, just the ruins.

Nasruddin said that the name should “be returned to reflect the original owner of the hill – the Malay Sultanate of Melaka” and that Perzim had prepared a working paper to effect the change and this would be brought to state Exco for approval.

Melaka may be a DAP stronghold, but it was the MCA which publicly raised objections to Perzim’s plan.

“If we want to talk about history, then it is also fair for Melaka to preserve its Hindu/Buddhist past without concealing any facts, ” said Kota Melaka vice-chairman Datuk Ronald Gan while urging Chief Minister Datuk Sulaiman Md Ali to intervene and end the move.

The questions being asked are: Why now? What benefits would the change in name bring? It is not as if there has been a dramatic archeological discovery on the hill, with the finding of artifacts linked to the sultanate.

If the aim is just to highlight the original name and educate visitors about the glory of the Melaka Sultanate, there is a simpler solution. Just erect a signboard displaying all the information, covering the lineage of rulers from Parameswara to Sultan Mahmud.

There is already a replica of the Melaka Sultanate Palace (Istana Kesultanan Melaka), built in 1984, based on descriptions of Sultan Mansur Shah’s (1456- 1477) abode in the Sejarah Melayu (Malay Annals). The majestic structure serves as a museum highlighting the grandeur of the sultanate.

According to W.G. Shellabear’s version of Sejarah Melayu, the palace complex was located at the top of the hill. But other historians have held conflicting views on the location as there could be up to three different palaces on or around the mount. There are also discordant views from historians on the beginning of the sultanate.

While it is believed that Parameswara was Hindu, the Persian name of Iskandar Shah, used in Sejarah Melayu, and confusion over whether Parameswara and Iskandar Shah referred to by different sources meant the same person led to the speculation that Parameswara had converted to Islam and taken a new name.

But based on Portuguese chronicler Tome Pires’ records, Paramjcura (Parameswara) was succeeded by his son Chaquem (sometimes spelled Xaquem) Daraxa (Iskandar Shah or Megat Iskandar Shah), who converted to Islam at the age of 72. Ming records also show Megat Iskandar Shah to be the son of Parameswara.

Pires’ Suma Oriental, regarded as the most important and complete account of the East produced in the first half of the 16th century, states that it was his son who initiated the settlement at Melaka.

According to the story, while the ruler and his followers were living in “Bretao” (present day Bertam), his son went hunting with his dogs which chased “an animal like a hare with feet like a little buck” to the sea and then up a hill, after which the animal turned on the hunting dogs and sent them scampering away.

Referring to Parameswara who went to the place to investigate, Pires writes: “He saw three hills almost together at (a distance of) three shots of a crossbow, to wit, the hill of Boqua China (Bukit China) with lovely waters and very fresh, and the hill of Alacras, which is on the side of Tuam Colaxcar, the Javanese Moor, and another the hill of the animal (monte Dalimaria) where this famous fortress now is. Paramjcura said to his son: ‘Xaquem Daxa, where do you want to settle? And the son said, ‘On this hill of Malacca’.”

So, besides “Hill of Malacca” and “hill of the animal”, this place was also simply called oiteiro (which also means hill in Portuguese).

As we know, the Portuguese built a fortress around it in 1548 and stayed within the walls. On the mount, they built several structures, including a Catholic church. When the Dutch conquered Melaka in 1641, they took over the church, turning it into a protestant place of worship.

Based on the ruins of St Paul’s Church, the hill was referred to as St Paul’s Hill and has remained so ever since. Yes, it is part of the colonial past, but is there a burning need to change the name now?

To his credit, Melaka Chief Minister Datuk Sulaiman Md Alias has responded by saying that feedback from the various stakeholders and serious deliberations were needed before such a move.

Yes, and the discussion should begin by examining the revision itself. Is it to reflect a more precise account or to appease the prevalent political, religious or racial tendencies?

Media consultant M. Veera Pandiyan likes this quote by James Baldwin: “People are trapped in history and history is trapped in them.” The views expressed here are entirely the writer’s own.