LANDING OF RAFFLES AT SINGAPORE.
In No. 10 of the Journal of the Straits Branch of the Royal Asiatic Society, page 285, is an interesting account of the "Landing of Raffles at Singapore, by an Eye-Witness."[1] So long as Wa Hakim, the name given to this venerable deponent, keeps to what he saw, his narrative appears to be strictly correct; but other details are so evidently contrary to what would have taken place, that I veuture to question their accuracy. For instance, he says:—" Batin Sapi, an Orang laut, went to bring Tunku Long from Bulang. I think he was away four days. Batin Sapi came back first, and then Tunku Long came."
Now, it is very unlikely that Sir Stamford Raffles, who had some knowledge and experience in Malay etiquette, would send a single "Orang laut" to summon to his presence a Prince of the Royal Blood, whom he intended to make Sultan of Johor, in order to obtain a proper cession of Singapore, and considering it a pity to allow such an erroneous statement pass to posterity as history, I have made enquiries from the best authorities, and find that two Anak Raja, namely, Raja Ombong and Inche Wan Abdullah, were the persons entrusted with the mission, and they brought Tunku Long here, having found him fishing in the Straits of Rhio. These Anak Raja received cach $500 for their trouble. My chief informant has been Mr. C. F. Keun, who derived his information from Tunku Purba, wife of Sultan Hussein; from Kaja Prang, brother of Raja Ombong, and from Tunku Dagang and the account scoms generally accepted by the Malays as correct. It is
- ↑ [With reference to this "Note," it may be as well to give the letter with which the previous "Note" was forwarded for Journal No. 10, which is here referred to:—"All the accounts I have got hold of in H.'s extensive library are contradictory. Thus in 'Sir Stamford Raffles' Life by his Widow' no definite account is given of his landing, but it says that the account as given by Crawfurd in the "Embassy to Siam" is wrong. In the first number of the predecessor of the Straits Asiatic Society's Journal, dated 1875, another account is given; and then there is the 'Hikâiat Abdullah' which differs from all. So that really I think old Wa Hakim's account is useful. I have put it in a condensed form." Ed.]
