Understanding history is important in the formation of individual, community and national identity. However, how we understand history deserves attention.

Academically, history is not just a recording of what happened, who did it and when it happened. As pointed out by the prominent historian, E.H. Carr, history is an interpretation of the past formed by historians according to their own perspectives and contexts.

As such, history is often a contested field because facts do not carry meanings on their own. What we understand as history has often gone through a process of selection, compilation and interpretation by historians themselves.

As an example, let us reflect on Singapore’s early history.

Although there is a presumption about the record of this island in the Greco-Roman map by Ptolemy in the 2nd century and a Chinese record in the 3rd century which called it “Pu Luo Zhong” (Pulau Ujong), we can only ascertain the existence of a kingdom in the 14th century through an Old Javanese text, Nagarakretagama.

The text mentions “Temasek” which was part of a state under Majapahit’s rule. According to the “Malay Annals”, Sulalatus Salatin (The Genealogy of Kings), Temasek was the original name of an island which was later renamed “Singapura” by Sang Nila Utama.

The actual existence of Sang Nila Utama is difficult to ascertain because there is no historical basis other than what is written in Sulalatus Salatin. The text is a work containing elements of oral stories, including myths and magical stories, which were later written around the 15th/16th century during the Malacca Sultanate. We do not know who the original author was.

However, an archaeological research led by Professor John Miksic in Fort Canning Hill has proven the existence of a kingdom as described in the text.

The oldest manuscript that exists today is the edited version of the chief minister of Johor, Tun Sri Lanang, who wrote in 1612. It is stored in the Royal Asiatic Society Library in London with the label Raffles MS No. 18.

What is important to note is that Tun Sri Lanang wrote it in the period after the fall of the Malacca Sultanate. The Johor Sultanate that replaced it was in a threatened position. The Aceh Sultanate rose to become a competitor in the Straits of Malacca.

Therefore, Sulalatus Salatin was written with the aim of telling the greatness of the Johor Sultanate which was the heir to the greatness of Malacca.

Malacca was opened by Iskandar Syah who was the last king of Singapore. In the early chapter of Sulalatus Salatin, the opening of Singapore is told. We already know the story of how Sang Nila Utama saw a lion and changed the name of Temasek to Singa-Pura (Lion City).

There is a general agreement among historians that the lion seen by Sang Nila Utama was not a real lion. Lions do not exist in a dense tropical forest. Furthermore, the lion that was described was very unusual: “its body is red, its head is black, and its chest is white.”

If we read Sulalatus Salatin literally, we will wonder what Sang Nila Utama actually saw.

This gives rise to irrational theories such as the animal was not a lion but a tiger. Were people during that time too ignorant to know the difference between a tiger and a lion? The existence of a lion is certainly common knowledge even though lions do not live here. This region has had centuries-old trade relations with areas beyond India where lions exist.

The “Chinese lion dance” theory proposed by the novelist Eric Ng Yuen also has no historical evidence. There is no historical evidence of the existence of a Chinese settlement, although we agree that this region was a stopover for Chinese traders as early as the 7th century. Even if the lion dance is a barongan as seen in Bali, there is no historical evidence that it was part of the culture that existed in the Malay region in the 14th century.

Hence, the debate about what Sang Nila Utama saw is futile. The purpose of Sulalatus Salatin was written to magnify the Malay royal lineage. That is why Sang Nila Utama himself was given the nickname Sri Tri Buana (king of the three realms) after opening a city in Temasek. He is said to be a prince from Palembang which was once the centre of the superior maritime empire of Srivijaya.

At the same time, Sang Nila Utama is also said to be a descendant of Raja Sulan, namely Rajendra Chola from the great empire in the southern Indian Ocean and Iskandar Zulkarnain who is considered a brave conqueror from the myth that was brought to India via Persia.

With that, we can assume that the initial story of Sulalatus Salatin is a symbolism that aims to elevate the greatness of the origins of the extraordinary Malay kings.

It is hence reasonable if the lion becomes an important symbol for the opening of a new country. What’s more, the symbolism of the lion as a sign of greatness has existed before. The Syailendra Dynasty, which was Buddhist and ruled Srivijaya, also used the lion motif in its royal coat of arms. The lion has been a motif in Buddhist art since King Ashoka in India embraced the religion in the first century BC.

In addition, Singapore is not the only country that uses the name lion. Previously, there was the Singha-sari Kingdom in Java in the 13th century. The capital of the Buleleng Kingdom in Bali was also called Singaraja in the 17th century based on the symbolism of its king’s bravery. Earlier, the capital of the Champa Kingdom in Vietnam in the 4th century was called Simhapura, or Lion City. Batak kings in Sumatra also used the title Singamangaraja (lion king) from the 16th century to symbolize bravery and courage. In fact, the official seat of the Malay kings was called “singgahsana”, from the Sanskrit words “simha” (lion) and “asana” (seat).

If the lion recorded in Sulalatus Salatin carried the symbolism of might and power when Sang Nila Utama opened his new kingdom, what is the symbolism of the lion in Singapore’s name today?

Of course, times have changed and we need to chart a new strength together. For me, Singapore’s strength lies in its openness to civilisations and knowledge from anywhere. In the past, this openness was absorbed into a rich culture, in terms of language, clothing, food and worldview. Great civilisations from China, India, Arabia and Europe left a deep impression and were fused with the strength of Malay civilisation.

In 1965, Singapore laid the foundation of multi-racialism. Although we acknowledge our history, which is rich with Malay heritage and ties to the region, we accept the existence of diverse ethnicities, as in the past.

If the term “homeland” is defined as the place where we were born, sought a life and finally buried, then it does not consider origins, as illustrated in the Malay proverb “where the land is trodden, there the sky is upheld”. As a result, the land that we call Singapore belongs to all who are committed to developing this country together to achieve peace, justice and equitable happiness.

This is what we need to develop. This starts with a strong grasp of history. If we are blind to history, we will easily be carried away by the sentiments played by groups that use and abuse history for political and racial interests.

This is the English version of the original Malay article published in Berita Harian on 10 August 2025.