Critical feedback sent to John Miksic (3)

Dear John Miksic, I do not quite agree with your claims. I have reservation to argue. In the mean while I would give you the following for your perusal. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Indian_influence_on_Southeast_Asia I will send you more. One thing for certain that entire maritime and mainland Southeast Asia is INDIANS NO OTHERS. Thank you. Best regards. adam khan Dear John Miksic, You may refer the following and make correction if you wish to have your work proper and have dignity. Long , long, long before the Raffles came to this part of the world as cabin boy, Singapore has been busy sea port, not a fishing village. Singapore Main article: Early history of Singapore See also: Timeline of Singaporean history and Kingdom of Singapura An artist's impression of Parameswara, who ruled Singapore in the 1390s. The Greco-Roman astronomer Ptolemy (90–168) identified a place called Sabana at the tip of Golden Chersonese (believed to be the Malay Peninsula) in the second and third century.[47] The earliest written record of Singapore may be in a Chinese account from the third century, describing the island of Pu Luo Chung (蒲 羅 中). This is thought to be a transcription from the Malay name "Pulau Ujong", or "island at the end" (of the Malay Peninsula).[48] In 1025 CE, Rajendra Chola I of the Chola Empire led forces across the Indian Ocean and invaded the Srivijayan empire, attacking several places in Malaysia and Indonesia.[49][50] The Chola forces were said to have controlled Temasek (now Singapore) for a couple of decades.[51] The name Temasek however did not appear in Chola records, but a tale involving a Raja Chulan (assumed to be Rajendra Chola) and Temasek was mentioned in the semi-historical Malay Annals.[52] The Nagarakretagama, a Javanese epic poem written in 1365, referred to a settlement on the island called Tumasik (possibly meaning "Sea Town" or "Sea Port").[53] Thank you. Best regards. adam khan **** 8888 **** Dear John Miksic, FYI .In the following paragraph, this statement (one of the words for "throne" in the Malay language is "singgasana", meaning "lion's seat" in Sanskrit), must be corrected. The 'throne" is called "Sihasana" not Singgasana. Now a day in Burma and Sri Lanka still call the '"throne", Siha-sana", where Siha means Lion. But then why Singapore is called Lion City and Singapura. There was a city called Singapura in Punjab.The Indians from Punjab and northwest part on Hindustan came to Singapore by stopping over Celon ( Sri Lanka ) and also travelled to Siam and settled there since last 4000 years ago. Sometime in its history, the name of Temasek was changed to Singapura. The Sejarah Melayu (Malay Annals) contains a tale of a prince of Srivijaya, Sri Tri Buana (also known as Sang Nila Utama), who landed on Temasek after surviving a storm in the 13th century. According to the tale, the prince saw a strange creature, which he was told was a lion; believing this to be an auspicious sign, he decided to found a settlement called Singapura, which means "Lion City" in Sanskrit. It is unlikely there ever were lions in Singapore, though tigers continued to roam the island until the early 20th century. However, the lion motif is common in Hindu mythology, which was dominant in the region during that period (one of the words for "throne" in the Malay language is "singgasana", meaning "lion's seat" in Sanskrit), and it has been speculated that the "Singapura" name, and the tale of the lion, were invented by court historians of the Malacca Sultanate to glorify Sang Nila Utama and his line of descent.[61] Aug 2020 Adam Khan Dear John Miksic, When we solely rely on an source like the notes of Jon Crawfurd, The Embassy of Siam and Cochin China and etc. I am aware that some scholars and writing in favour of some people to rewrite Singapore History, the Island owned by the Malay to claim co-ownership. When a particular race who migrated to a land owned by the indigenous race, in this case the Malay, dominate as they say they are majority race on the land belongs to other to claim co-ownership. Please reefer the following statement made by original Siam man, Anthropologist Srisakra Vallibhotama, ( to read as Sham not Si-yam) which was looted by the migrant Phibun Songkarang. Anthropologist Srisakra Vallibhotama has the answer. “First, forget the textbook history focusing on kingdoms. More precisely, stop believing Sukhothai was the Thai nation’s first kingdom,” asserts Ajarn Srisakra, one of the country’s most prominent and outspoken scholars. According to textbook history, an influx of ethnic Thais from Yunnan in southern China migrated into upper Siam, ousted the Khmer rulers, founded Sukhothai and spread their new power far and wide. Sukhothai became the first Thai kingdom in the 13th century, followed by the kingdoms of Ayutthaya, Thonburi and Rattanakosin. https://www.southeastasianarchaeology.com/2019/10/03/opening-minds-with-an-ancient-mandala/# Should we as researchers and scholars support this kind of looting? How should we prevent this type of international crimes? Do n't you feel communist threat at the South and East China Sea , Bay of Bengal and Tibet? Thank you.