For 50 years since 1897, scholars who have worked on early Malacca history have struggled with the discrepancies about the first three rulers in the Malay, Chinese and Portuguese sources. The most important contributions towards deciding the names of these rulers and the length of their reigns were made by Wilkinson, Rouffaer and Winstedt and, during the period 1920–1935, it became clear that, despite many difficulties in reconciling the Malay and Portuguese materials, the chronology given in the Chinese sources had to be accepted. Winstedt then suggested the following in his History of Malaya published in the Journal of the Malayan Branch of the Royal Asiatic Society in 1935:

Then, following the publication of Tomé Pires’ Suma Oriental in 1944, Winstedt became dissatisfied with his 1935 list and in 1947–1948 published two short articles which proposed that Parameswara and Iskandar Shah were one and the same person and that the change of name in Chinese sources suggested that Parameswara became a Muslim about 1414. This interpretation was soon incorporated into revised editions of Malaya and its History and A History of Malaya and the list now reads:

The key arguments Winstedt used to reject the Chinese account about Megat Iskandar Shah (Mu-kan-sa-yu-ti-er-sha) being the son of Parameswara were

1. (a) “The (Chinese) annalist, not having met the Malay visitor or understood Malay, naturally took this ruler to be different from Parameswara.”

2. (b) Sejarah Melayu (1536) says that Iskandar Shah reigned 3 years in Singapore and 20 in Malacca, and this fitted the Chinese dates 1403 and 1424, a 20 year period between Malacca's foundation and the death of Mu-kan-sa-yu-ti-er-sha.

3. (c) Suma Oriental (1512–15) says that Xaquem Darxa became a Muslim at 72 and died 8 years later. Again, this approximates the Chinese dates 1414–1424 if the ruler was converted in 1414. Also, while it was likely that the founder was an old man before he died, it was not possible for his son, “almost a man at the founding of Malacca” to be so old in 1424.

In Winstedt's second short article, he quoted Professor Pelliot to show that a number of Chinese secondary sources were not consistent and therefore Chinese dates could not always be relied upon.