Читать книгу One Hundred Years' History Of The Chinese In Singapore: The Annotated Edition - Ong Siang Song - Страница 16

CHAPTER II

THE FIRST DECADE (1819-29)

WHEN the British flag was hoisted on the plain (somewhere in the vicinity of the Esplanade) in Singapore, the population of the island, according to Captain Newbold,¹ amounted to about 150 fishermen and pirates living in a few miserable huts: about thirty of these were Chinese, the remainder Malays. The Malays were most probably the Orang Laut (the descendants of the aborigines of Johore before the Malays crossed from Sumatra) who had accompanied the Dato Temenggong Sree Maharajah,² Ruler of Singapore, from Johore in 1811. Dr R Little³ conjectured that when the island was made an English settlement it contained about 200 to 300 Malays. He was silent as to whether there were any Chinese settlers on the island at the time. Had there been any, it seems curious that neither Raffles nor Abdullah Munshi⁴ should have made mention of the fact. We know, however, that Major Farquhar,⁵ who was appointed the First Resident by Sir Stamford Raffles, sent the news of the settlement to Malacca by a sampan, and asked the Malays to come to Singapore, urging them to bring fowls, ducks, fruits and provisions of all kinds for which they would obtain a ready sale. Letters to the same effect were also sent by some of the Malays who had accompanied Major Farquhar in the expedition to Singapore.

Abdullah tells us that the news that there was pro-[7]fitable business to be done in Singapore spread like wildfire among the inhabitants of Malacca; and in spite of the severe measures taken by the Dutch authorities there to prevent any person sailing for Singapore, and also in spite of the petty pirates who would take fowls and even fishing boats from the anchorage at Malacca and who lay in wait in the Straits of Cucob for their victims, ‘hundreds found their way to Singapore, fleeing from the punishments in Malacca and the want of employment, combined with the oppression of the Hollanders: some laboured at wood-cutting, others at house-building, others shopped, each to their business’.⁶

It seems pretty certain that a number of Chinese were among the new arrivals from Malacca, for the Hikayat Abdullah records that when early in June 1819 Sir Stamford Raffles had, after consultation with Mr Farquhar, decided to break up the hill ‘at the end of Singapore point’ and fill up the swamp on the south bank of the river (Boat Quay and up to the Police Court), two or three hundred coolies, Chinese, Malays and Klings, were employed at the rate of one rupee a day each man, some digging and carrying the earth, others breaking the rocks which were very plentiful and large in the hill – each one to his special work ‘as if a battle were raging’.⁷

On the 11th June 1819 Raffles wrote to the Duchess of Somerset:

My new colony thrives most rapidly. We have not been established four months, and it has received an accession of population exceeding 5,000 – principally Chinese, and their number is daily increasing.⁸

On the 25th June, shortly before his departure, Raffles gave minute written instructions to Major Farquhar of his duties as Resident. With regard to Police and Administration of Justice he directed that ‘the Chinese, Bugguese and other foreign settlers are to be placed under the immediate superintendence of chiefs of their own tribes to be appointed by you, and [8] these chiefs will be responsible to you for the police within their respective jurisdictions.’⁹

The Resident was also instructed to construct without delay a bridge across the river so as to connect the cantonments with the intended Chinese and Malay towns on the opposite side of the river. On the following day an Arrangement was made and signed between Raffles and the Sultan and Temenggong providing for the Government of Singapore, by the 2nd Article of which it was directed that

… all the Chinese should move over to the other side of the river, forming a kampong from the site of the large bridge down the river towards the mouth: and all Malays, people belonging to the Temenggong and others, should also remove to the other side of the river, forming their kampong from the site of the large bridge up the river towards the source.¹⁰

The large bridge referred to in the above Arrangement stood, it is conjectured, on the site where Elgin Bridge is now, and the Chinese kampong evidently became the present Boat Quay, as it occupies the position pointed out.

There does not appear to have been any record of the Chinese or other ‘chiefs’ of the various native kampongs who were directed to be appointed by the above Arrangement to receive complaints and to deal with grievances of those under their respective jurisdictions, and who were themselves to attend every Monday morning at the Rumah Bichara.¹¹

Although the Supreme Government of India, in the very early days of the Settlement, failed to realise the vision of its founder that Singapore would one day become the emporium and pride of the East, and in a letter dated 11th January 1820 to the Resident gave him to understand that Singapore was to be considered as a military post rather than as a fixed settlement, we are told that the year 1820 found people of all nations coming here: Chinese, Arabs and a few Europeans. Chinese traders who had before 1819 resorted to such places as Manila and Brunei found it safer and more [9] profitable after that date to visit Singapore in their junks and in time to settle down here. Chinese people in both these places had been ill-treated. Capt Campbell of HMS Dauntless reporting the massacre in Manila on 3rd December 1820 stated that the natives, incited to rise under the belief that an epidemic that was then raging was owing to foreigners poisoning the wells and tanks, slaughtered all the English, French, Dutch and Americans whom they could find, including eighty Chinese. In the case of Brunei, the Singapore Chronicle12 recorded that towards the end of the eighteenth century its foreign trade fell almost entirely away, because the government of the country had become tyrannical, rapacious and piratical, and Chinese vessels did not venture to approach the coast. With the cessation of Chinese trade, the Chinese population rapidly declined, and the pepper gardens in which many of them had been employed were neglected.

In the space of a little more than a year from the foundation of the Settlement, Sir Stamford Raffles writing to friends in England said that ‘this port, from being an insignificant fishing village, is now surrounded by an extensive town, and the population does not fall short of ten or twelve thousand souls, principally Chinese’.¹³

We shall see later that those figures were an overestimate, but there is no doubt that the port was increasing in popularity in so phenomenal a manner as to make some people lose their heads when attempting to prophesy its future prospects. Thus Col Farquhar in a private letter dated 31st March 1820 to Raffles expressed himself:

Nothing can possibly exceed the rising trade and general prosperity of this infant colony, indeed to look at our harbour just now, where upwards of twenty junks, three of which are from China, and two from Cochin China, the rest from Siam, and other vessels are at anchor, besides ships, brigs, etc, a person would naturally exclaim, ‘Surely this cannot be an establishment of only twenty months’ standing.’ One [10] of the principal Chinese merchants here told me, in the course of conversation, that he would be very glad to give $500,000 for the revenue of Singapore five years hence. … The swampy ground on the opposite side of the river is now almost covered with Chinese houses, and the Bugis village is become an extensive town.¹⁴

With Chinese forming such a large element of the inhabitants, a great many of whom were addicted to the opium and gambling habits, the idea occurred to the Resident to follow the lead given by Penang and Malacca and establish opium, spirit and gambling farms, thereby obtaining revenue for police purposes. In spite of a strong protest from Raffles, then at Bencoolen, the farms were sold, realising monthly $395 for four opium shops, $100 for arrack shops and $95 for gaming tables. A little later, the gaming tables were placed under the special control of the ‘Captain China’ and a tax levied on them. The proceeds of the gaming tax were applied to keeping the streets clean. The farm revenues were kept as a separate fund and applied to local purposes until May 1826 when they were ordered to be paid into the Treasury.

The arrival of the first junk from Amoy in February 1821 was the occasion for a dispute between the merchants and the Resident. It would seem that the Sultan had been in the habit of receiving presents from the masters of vessels calling at the port, and when the tai-kong of this particular junk, having obtained timely information of the new order of things, would not pay his respects to the Sultan or tender the customary gifts, he was put in the stocks by the Sultan’s followers: and the merchants, jealous of the reputation of the Settlement as a free port, remonstrated. The Resident thought it was an improper, premature and unnecessary interference on the part of the merchants, and wrote to that effect to Sir Stamford Raffles. This gave much offence to the merchants.

At this time the provisions made by the authorities for the policing of the town were wholly inadequate to [11] the needs of the place. In September 1821 at the request of the Resident certain European merchants met for the purpose of carrying into effect the resolutions passed at a meeting of the merchants held six months previously that funds should be raised by means of voluntary subscriptions for increasing the strength of the police establishment and that a committee of three Europeans and three native merchants should be formed to take into consideration all points connected with the Police. The meeting decided to request the Resident to suggest to the inhabitants of Kampong Glam and China Town the propriety of subscribing to the proposed fund for extending the police system to these kampongs. The response was apparently not hearty, for the mercantile subscription, which was called the ‘Night Watch Fund’, amounted in the average to $54 a month – sufficient, however, to increase the police establishment by one native sergeant and nine native constables. The Chinese held aloof, but we find that shortly afterwards, as robberies became more frequent in their kampongs, they realised the propriety of subscribing to the Night Watch Fund.

Towards the end of the year 1822, Sir Stamford Raffles was back again in Singapore, busily engaged among other things in remodelling and laying out his new city. He issued a proclamation on the 29th October 1822 appointing a committee of three European gentlemen and a representative from each of the principal classes of Arabs, Malays, Bugis, Javanese and Chinese for appropriating and marking out the quarters or departments of the several classes of the native population.

In Raffles’s written Instructions given on 4th November 1822 to Capt Davis (President) and Messrs Bonham and AL Johnston (Members) on the above subject, the Chinese inhabitants were roughly divided into three classes :

(a)The lower classes, earning their livelihood by handicrafts and personal labour, who were then in [12] occupation of a considerable portion of the sea and river face, and in this class were included the Chinese artificers who had settled on the beach near Telok Ayer and Kampong Glam and who were to be removed from thence without delay.

(b)A higher and more respectable class engaged in mercantile speculation, and

(c)The cultivators who were to be excluded from the proposed town limits.

The following instructions were given to the Committee for the Chinese kampong:

From the number of Chinese already settled, and the peculiar attractions of the place for that industrious race, it may be presumed that they will always form the largest portion of the community. The whole therefore of that part of the town to the south-west of the Singapore river (except where marked out for the use of European and other merchants) is intended to be appropriated for their accommodation. …

In establishing the Chinese kampong on a proper footing, it will be necessary to advert to the provincial and other distinctions among this peculiar people. It is well known that the people of one province are more quarrelsome than another, and that continued disputes and disturbances take place between people of different provinces. It will also be necessary to distinguish between the fixed residents and itinerants. … Of the latter, those from Amoy claim particular attention, and it may perhaps deserve consideration whether on account of their importance it may not be advisable to allot a separate division for their accommodation, even to the westward of the cantonments beyond the European town and the Sultan. The object of the Government being to afford the utmost accommodation to every description of traders, but more particularly to the respectable classes … you are not to lose sight of the advantage which may arise from deviating from the rule (i.e. of concentrating the different classes of the population in their separate quarters) in special cases where the commercial interests of the Settlement are concerned. Few places offer greater natural facilities [13] for commerce than Singapore and it is only desired that the advantage of these facilities be afforded to all who are competent to avail themselves of them in the proportion of their relative importance and claims to consideration.

It being intended to place the Chinese population in a great measure under the immediate control of their own chiefs, you will fix up such centrical and commanding sites for the residence of these authorities and appropriate to them such larger extent of ground, as may tend to render them efficient instruments of police, and at the same time raise them in the consideration of the lower classes. … The concentration of the different descriptions of artificers, such as blacksmiths, carpenters, etc, in particular quarters should also be attended to.¹⁵

Raffles also gave instructions for the removal of the fish market to Telok Ayer, and directed the Committee to consider whether, in the interests of general convenience and cleanliness, it might not be advantageous to concentrate the fish, pork, poultry and vegetable markets in the vicinity of each other. It would appear that Col Farquhar fixed on a site for the market more suitable than that first proposed by the Committee, and Tan Che Sang (better known as Inchek Sang or Chek Sang),¹⁶ the principal Chinese merchant in the place at that time, agreed to build it at his own expense, if he was allowed to hold it free of tax for a certain number of years. Whether his offer was accepted or not, the records do not say.

Tan Che Sang¹⁷ is the first Chinese name mentioned in Mr Buckley’s Anecdotal History of Singapore. He was born at Canton,¹⁸ circa 1763, and at the age of 15 had left his native city for Rhio, thence he went to Penang where he remained for ten years, then to Malacca where he was for some years, and finally he settled down in Singapore. He was a wealthy man, and as there were no banks in those days he kept his money in iron boxes and slept among them.¹⁹ He was said to be a great miser, [14] but addicted to gambling. He knew his weakness and tried to conquer the vicious habit in a dramatic fashion by cutting off the first joint of one of his little fingers with an oath not to play any more when, on one occasion, he had lost a considerable sum of money at the gaming table; but the remedy proved ineffectual, for he fell a victim to the habit again.²⁰ He died here on 2nd April 1836 at the age of 73 and was buried on the 13th: the funeral, attended by ten to fifteen thousand (?)²¹ persons, proceeded through the commercial part of the town on the way to the Hokien burial ground.²² It is said that Che Sang used to boast that he wielded so much influence over the Chinese section²³ that any day he said the word he could empty the place of all the Europeans, but he never tried.²⁴

He left a will in the Chinese language in which he directed that a block of land comprising 51,558 square feet with frontages on High Street and North Boat Quay (being Lease No. 298)²⁵ ‘should be kept for the joint concern and reserved for ever as an ancestral heritage and should not be turned into money for apportionment nor sold nor alienated’; but in 1880 in an action instituted by Wee Swee Lum, executor of Tan Swan Neo deceased, a daughter of the said Tan Che Sang, against Lee Boon Neo and others, the Court held that on the true construction of the will, the direction reserving the aforesaid property for ever was void as creating a perpetuity, and that the said Tan Che Sang died intestate in respect of such property and ordered a sale thereof in thirty lots.

In Raffles’s Instructions a moderate compensation was directed to be paid to such Chinese settlers as were required to remove their dwellings, and it may safely be presumed that the market gardeners and the other cultivators of the soil who had to be excluded from the proposed new town limits were treated with the same consideration. During the four years from the founding of the Settlement, a certain number of the Chinese immigrants had given their attention to agriculture and pros-[15]pered as planters of vegetables, nutmegs, spices, gambier and pepper. It is worthy of note that in a despatch dated the 13th February 1819 reporting to the Supreme Government the occupation of the island, Raffles was already able to write: ‘The industrious Chinese are already established in the interior and may soon be expected to supply vegetables etc. equal to the demand.’ From the same despatch we learn that a number of Chinese were then already engaged in building boats and vessels, some were engaged in smelting the ore brought from the tin mines in the neighbouring islands, and others were employed as cultivators and artificers.

On the 4th February 1823 Raffles, who had already written to Calcutta for the removal from office of Lieut-Col Farquhar on the ground that, under his weak and inconsistent rule, favouritism and irregularities were daily arising, directed his Secretary to write to the Resident on the subject of cracker-firing as a nuisance:

I have the directions of the Lieutenant-Governor to request you will take immediate measures for preventing the Chinese from continuing the practice of letting off fireworks at the Kramat you have allowed to be erected on the Government Hill.

The Lieutenant-Governor regrets exceedingly that any such establishment should have been permitted by you, on a spot so close to the site which has been set apart for the residence of the chief authority, and he trusts you will see the propriety of causing the discontinuance of the nuisance.

The Lieutenant-Governor desires me to state that he was disturbed during the whole of last night by the nuisance complained of. I am at the same time directed to request you will cause the removal of the Chinese movable temple and lights from the great tree near the lines and which is included within the space proposed to be reserved for the Church.²⁶

Another sore point with Raffles in the administration of Farquhar was the deliberate manner in which by [16] establishing a gambling farm he had frustrated the policy declared by Raffles in 1819 that the vice of gaming was strictly prohibited. In May 1823 Raffles asked the opinion of the magistrates as to the desirability of gambling licences, and they unanimously represented the great and growing evils arising from the vice. Despite the opposition of the Resident, Raffles issued his Regulation IV of 1823²⁷ prohibiting gaming houses and cockpits and providing for punishments extracted from the Penal Code of China concerning gambling:

Whoever games for money or goods shall receive 80 blows with a cudgel on the breech, and all money or property staked shall be forfeited to Government. He who opens the gambling house, although he does not gamble, shall suffer the same punishment and the gaming house shall be confiscated. …

Whoever gambles, whether soldiers or people, shall wear the broad heavy wooden collar one month. …

In some cases the parties are to be transported.²⁸

The Chinese gamblers and gambling farmers were of course displeased, but were soon consoled, for they discovered that Mr John Crawfurd, who had arrived on the 9th June as successor to Farquhar, was a Resident after their own heart. We find Mr Crawfurd writing on the 15th July to the Secretary to the Government at Bengal complaining of the severity of the punishment against gambling, and he continued:

A sentence of this nature was on the point of being carried into effect by the eleemosynary magistrates of Singapore when I found myself compelled to come forward to stay the proceedings and finally to annul them.²⁹

Notwithstanding the unanimous protest of the nonofficial section of the magisterial bench, whose opinion and advice had been sought by the Resident, on the 23rd August notice of conditions of sale of ten licensed gaming houses and of one cockpit in the Bugis kampong was issued: and on the 18th September the Resident [17] addressed a further letter to the Supreme Government in which he said that ‘the principal natives and Chinese made repeated applications for the suspension of the Regulation, stating a fact, the accuracy of which could not be questioned, that many of the lower classes had quitted the Settlement on account of being deprived of a customary amusement’.

But Raffles utterly repudiated the policy that it was necessary or expedient to relax the rules of government and morality in order to induce the immigration of Chinese and other traders. He had established ‘freedom of person as the right of the soil, and freedom of trade as the right of the port’, and with all the earnestness of his strenuous nature he pleaded with the Governor-General in Council not to sacrifice principle for expediency in the matter of the gambling farm at Singapore. ‘It is alleged’, he writes, ‘in support of the gaming farm, that by placing it under regulation, the quantity of vice is diminished, but independently of the want of authority of any human government to countenance evil for the sake of good, I cannot admit that the effects of any regulation whatever, established on such a principle, are to be put in competition with the solid advantages which must accrue from the administration of a Government acting on strict moral principles, discountenancing vice and exercising its best efforts to suppress it’.

Legalised gambling went on during the whole term of office of Mr Crawfurd (1823-6), and the revenue from that Farm which was $15,076 in 1823 was double that amount in 1826, being $30,390. There were, however, still residents who did not look at the subject merely from the point of view of revenue, and in 1827 the Grand Jury made a presentment against the Gaming Farm as an immoral nuisance and were met by this remark: ‘I did not think there were thirteen such idiots in this Island.’ Ten years later, the first Recorder, Sir John T Claridge,³⁰ between whom and the Governor, Mr Fullerton,³¹ there had been a most violent quarrel, [18] made a declaration from the Bench that the Gambling Farm was illegal, and the Government reluctantly suspended the gaming-farm system. A few months after the recall of Sir John Claridge, Mr Fullerton brushed aside his decision and affirmed the legality of this method of raising the revenue. But his success was short-lived, for towards the end of the same year the Court of Directors finally abolished the Farm.

Two attempts were made later to reintroduce the Gaming Farm, the first being made by Mr Bonham,³² the Resident Councillor, in 1834, and the second by the press in 1836, but both failed.

It is interesting to observe that Abdullah, writing his Hikayat in 1840, gave a paragraph to this subject wherein he defended Raffles’s strong measures against gambling.

These measures were humane, tending to save people from destruction; for gambling is destructive of man, as it encourages cheating and evil propensities. Further, gambling is the father of wickedness and has three children: the eldest being Inchek Bohong (Falsehood), the second Inchek Churi (Thief) and the youngest Inchek Pembunoh (Murderer).³³

The question of a gambling farm continued for many years thereafter to be hotly and bitterly discussed, particularly in 1860 when from June to September it was thrashed out at great length in the Free Press, and doubtless this led to the Duke of Newcastle, Secretary of State for the Colonies, making inquiry about the propriety of licensing gambling houses. An opinion favourable to a farm was given by several of the old Straits merchants in London, but the matter did not proceed further. Legislation against gaming houses had been made four years previously in certain sections of the Police Act of 1856, but the inaction of the police during the fortnight after the Chinese New Year in 1862 when gambling went on unchecked was so noticeable that on 12th June a public meeting, called by the Sheriff, at the written request of thirty-three of the principal European residents, was held in the Town Hall [19] to consider what steps should be taken to deal with the gambling evil. At this meeting, which was largely attended, various views were expressed, and a Chinese gentleman suggested that licensing should be tried for a limited time, but nothing further seems to have been done. Next came Ordinance XIII of 1870, followed by amending Ordinances in 1876 and 1879, and finally the Common Gaming Houses Ordinance (V of 1888) was enacted.

As a rule, the Chinese have fully recognised the evils of the gambling habit, and before leaving the subject it deserves to be recorded that in the Federated Malay States the gambling farms, which for so many years had yielded a large revenue, have been abolished at the express request of the Chinese themselves, the change having come with the foundation of the Chinese Republic.³⁴

In 1823 Seah Eu Chin came to Singapore from Swatow. He was born in 1805 and lived in the village of Guek-po in the interior of Swatow within the sub-prefecture of Theng-hai. His father, Seah Keng Liat , held the position of secretary to the yamen of the P’o Leng subprefecture, and this would probably explain his intimate knowledge of the Chinese written language. Being of an enterprising nature, he worked his way to Singapore as a clerk on board a Chinese junk, and on arrival, on the recommendation of the owners of the junk, he became attached as clerk to several trading vessels. During five years of a roving sea life, he was engaged in bartering with the natives, and thereby acquired a wide knowledge of the mental habits of the Malays as well as of their requirements. The various junks whereon he was employed visited from time to time practically all the coasts of the Straits of Malacca, the islands of the Rhio Archipelago and the east coast of the Malay Peninsula as far north as Singgora.

Seah Eu Chin

When he was scarcely twenty-five years of age, he was established in Kling Street and afterwards in [20] Circular Road, Singapore, as a commission agent supplying the junks trading between this port and Rhio, Sumatra and the ports of the Malay Peninsula, with all their wants and receiving from them all the produce they had collected for sale on commission. His business was successful, and he invested his profits in landed property. He was, it is said, the first to start gambier and pepper planting on a large scale in this island,³⁵ and in 1835 acquired for this purpose a large tract of land extending countrywards for eight to ten miles from the upper end of River Valley Road among more or less what is now Irwell Bank Road to Bukit Timah and Thomson Roads. We are told that he tried planting tea, nutmegs and other tropical produce, but not succeeding as he had expected, he gave them up and tried gambier. At that time the price of gambier was 75 cents, and pepper $1.50 a picul. He was seriously intending to discontinue these plantations, but Mr Church³⁶ persuaded him to persevere and he made a large fortune thereby. Besides being a planter, he was also a general trader in cotton goods and in tea, and had extensive dealings with European firms and was well known among them and highly respected. In 1840 he became a member of the Singapore Chamber of Commerce (composed of the principal European and native mer chants). In 1847 and 1848 he wrote, for Logan’s Journal,³⁷ articles in the Chinese language upon the ‘Remittances made by the Chinese to their Parents’,³⁸ and the ‘Numbers, tribes and avocations of the Chinese in Singapore’,³⁹ which were translated and published in Volumes 1 and 2 of that Journal.

In 1850 he headed the deputation of the Chinese which waited upon the Governor-General, Lord Dalhousie, on his visit to Singapore, and Governor Butterworth⁴⁰ wrote to him expressing his grateful acknowledgments for the assistance he had given in welcoming his Lordship. From 1851 onwards he was frequently summoned to act as a grand juror. He was a straight- [21] forward man, and rendered many valuable services to the Government, especially during the great Hokien and Teochew riot in 1854. He was quite fearless during those trou blous times and used to go with the Sepoys who escorted the conveyance of food to his plantations.

It was not at all remarkable that Government readily granted him in 1853 a certificate of naturalisation under Indian Act XXX of 1852. Mr Church, writing to him on 29th December 1853, referred to his grant as follows:

The Governor desires me to add that he cannot permit the certificate to leave this office without assuring you of the satisfaction it has afforded him to enrol the name of so talented and so highly respectable a Chinese resident of Singapore amongst the naturalised British subjects in the Straits of Malacca.

Later, during the time of Sir R McCausland (Recorder 1856-66), it was not unusual for the Court to advise Chinese suitors to refer their cases to Seah Eu Chin. When Col. Ord became the first Governor of the Straits Settlements under Crown rule, Seah Eu Chin was made a JP, one of the first Chinese who received this distinction from the Government.

In 1837 he married the eldest daughter of Tan Ah Hun,⁴¹ the rich Captain China of Perak, whose son, Tan Seng Poh, was for many years one of the opium and spirit farmers in Singapore. His wife died a few months after her marriage, from the effects of smallpox, and about a year later he married his deceased wife’s younger sister, by whom he had four sons and three daughters. The eldest son – the late Mr Seah Cheo Seah,⁴² JP, a gentleman well known for his kindness of heart and liberality – died in 1885, leaving Seah Eng Kiat⁴³ and Seah Eng Kun⁴⁴ among his sons.⁴⁵ The second son, Mr Seah Liang Seah, will be referred to later. Of the other two sons, Mr Seah Song Seah, at one time a partner in the Opium and Spirit Farm, died a few years ago in China,⁴⁶ and Mr Seah Pek Seah,⁴⁷ JP, is a partner of Chin Huat Hin Oil Trading Co.⁴⁸ He was the [22] first Hon Treasurer of the Straits Chinese British Association, and held the office for four years.

Seah Pek Seah

Seah Eu Chin⁴⁹ retired from active business in 1864 when he was sixty years of age, and spent the remaining years of his life in the cultivation of Chinese literature, of which he was by no means a poor scholar. In September 1875 he was appointed trustee of the Teochew Chinese burial ground in Orchard Road, comprising 72 acres,⁵⁰ where the average number of burials was about forty-five a month. He died on 23rd September 1883 at the age of 78,⁵¹ and his widow died in 1905.

Early in January 1824 the Resident, Mr Crawfurd, asked permission to forward a gold cup, with a letter dated 23rd December 1823, presented to Col Farquhar, the late Resident, by the Chinese inhabitants of Singapore. Abdullah’s description of the Colonel was ‘a man of good parts, slow at fault finding, treating rich and poor alike, and very patient in listening to the complaints of any person who went to him, so that all returned rejoicing’. Farquhar had tried to look at Asiatic problems through Asiatic spectacles and failed as administrator of the high-principled policy laid down for him by Raffles. His popularity among the natives was shown on his departure from Singapore, when they accompanied him to his ship in the harbour in numerous boats decorated with flags and accompanied with music.

In January 1824 the first census of the population was taken. Out of a total of 10,683 inhabitants, the Chinese numbered 3,317 or less than one-third. There were 74 Europeans, 16 Armenians, 15 Arabs and 4,580 Malays (the largest section of the community). Although Sir Stamford had written in 1820 that out of a population of between ten and twelve thousand, the principal element was Chinese, this did not prove to be correct, from a numerical point of view, until many, many years afterwards. It is interesting to observe the steady increase of the Chinese community from the censuses of the next twelve years: [23]

The Singapore Free Press, dealing with the census for 1835-6, supplies the following details:

In the town the total number of inhabitants was 16,148, of whom 12,748 were males and 3,400 females. The Chinese figures were 8,233. The town limits were the Rochore River as the eastern boundary, Mr Ryan’s hill (now known as Bukit Pasoh) as the western boundary and from the sea in wards to a line drawn parallel to Mount Sophia.⁵² The country was subdivided into two districts, Singapore Town and Kampong Glam, with respective populations of 4,184 (Chinese 2,338 including 41 females) and 9,652 (Chinese 3,178 including 72 females). Newbold⁵³ remarks that ‘the Chinese females here mentioned are not of course natives of China, but all of a creole or mixed race and mostly from the neighbouring island of Bintang.’⁵⁴

A census taken in 1849 showed that out of a total population of 59,043 the Chinese numbered 24,790 or just under 42 per cent. It was only when Singapore had been forty years under the British flag that the Chinese community formed more than one-half of the whole population. The following comparative table should prove interesting:

[24] Of the 219,577 Chinese in this Settlement in 1911 (when the last census was taken) the Census report gives the following details:—

SINGAPORE MUNICIPALITY (CHINESE)

COUNTRY (CHINESE)

Abdullah has given an account of the flight of twenty-seven female slaves from the Sultan’s harem, and their appearance at the police office to lay their complaints. They were young and pretty, but had all been cruelly treated. ‘One opened the clothes on her back to show the marks of the rattan cane, others had marks of having been hung up, others of burnings with pitch, others complained of being punished by fasting and nakedness.’⁵⁵ Mr Crawfurd allowed them to go where they liked: ‘so some went with the policemen, some to the Klings, others to the Chinese, and a few of them to the houses of the Europeans, just wherever they could get food and clothing’.⁵⁶

Mr Crawfurd wrote on the 10th January 1824 to the Supreme Government on this and other subjects, and remarked that whilst among the followers of the Sultan and Temenggong the proportion of women to men was two to one, among the free settlers this proportion was even more than inversed, and in the case of the [25] Chinese the disproportion was so great that there were at least eight men to every woman. Looking, however, at the census tables given above, the proportion of Chinese males to Chinese females at that time must have been at least twelve to one. Even at the present day, judging from the 1911 census, there are, among the immigrant Chinese population, something like four men to every woman, although among the Straitsborn Chinese to every 100 males there are 113 females.

Towards the close of the year 1824 for the first time some riots occurred among the Chinese, in which several persons were killed and wounded. There is no reason to believe that these riots had any connection with the operations of secret societies, since such societies did not come before public notice until six years later. It is quite conceivable that among the very earliest immigrants into Singapore there were some members of the Triad Society (or ‘Thian-ti-hui’) as political refugees, and, according to Mr JD Vaughan,⁵⁷ ‘it is said that some Europeans, on the first settlement of Singapore, who lived far away from the town beyond the protection of the police, joined the society for protection.’⁵⁸ It was, however, after the lapse of more than twenty years from this date that the next Chinese riot broke out, and so we pass on.

On the 20th April 1826, out of fifty-one leases – the earliest of the existing titles to landed property in Singapore issued in exchange for location tickets to those residents who had cleared and built on lands comprised on such tickets – twenty-two were registered in favour of Chinese. Tan Che Sang secured five and Si Hoo Keh⁵⁹ four titles to land in Commercial Square and Malacca and Telok Ayer Streets, while Choa Chong Long, and Kiong Kong Tuan got a title each to land in Commercial Square and Yeo Kim Swi a title to land in Malacca Street. Two months later ten more leases [26] were issued to Chinese for lands in Boat Quay and Circular Road. In 1827 not less than 199 leases were given to Chinese inhabitants comprising lands situate at Market Street, Philip Street, Telok Ayer Street, Church Street, China Street, Pekin Street, Kling Street, Circular Road, Amoy Street, Cross Street, High Street, Japan Street and South Bridge Road. In the following year eighty-four leases went to more Chinese residents who had built houses in Beach Road, North Bridge Road, Chinchew Street, Nankin Street, China Street, Hokien Street and Macao Street. Most of the lessees’ names are unfamiliar or untraceable, but besides the names of Choa Chong Long, Tan Che Sang and Kiong Kong Tuan, who were already registered landowners, there began to appear the names of men like Tan Tock Seng, Yeo Hood Ing (or Hooding), Yeo Ching Hai and Tan Oo Long, who became prominent citizens in the later history of Singapore.

In 1827 Mr Prince,⁶⁰ the Resident Councillor, sent round a circular to the natives pointing out the advantages of education, and calling upon them to co-operate in opening schools. Whether at this time or before it the Chinese residents had established any educational institutions or sent their children to Malacca or Penang for their education, we are unable to say: but two years later the Rev GH Thomsen, a German missionary, reported that there was a Cantonese school at Kam pong Glam of twelve boys, and another at Pekin Street of eight boys, while there was a Hokien school at Pekin Street of twenty-two boys.

In the same year the attention of Government was drawn to the great increase of Chinese vagrants in the town, which state of affairs was remedied by their being given an allowance of rice for one year and being sent into the interior to clear jungle.

In June 1828 the first Criminal Sessions were held in Singapore by Mr Fullerton, the Governor of Penang, Malacca and Singapore (incorporated in 1826 as one Settlement), and Mr Murchison,⁶¹ the Resident Coun-[27]cillor of Singapore Station. There were twenty-seven indictments presented to the Grand Jury, of which six were found for murder. Two of the prisoners charged with this capital offence were convicted – one Kling and one Chinese – and they were hanged on the 26th June 1828.

1[Song: British Settlements in the Straits of Malacca (1839)]. See TJ Newbold, Political and Statistical Account of the British Settlements in the Straits of Malacca (London: John Murray, 1839), Vol 1, at 279. Thomas John Newbold (1807–1850) joined the British East India Company in 1828 as ensign in the 23rd regiment of the Madras Light Brigade and rose to the rank of Captain in 1842. He spent three years in the Straits of Malacca where he interacted regularly with the native chiefs of the Malay Peninsula. He accumulated materials for several papers which he published in the Asiatic societies of Madras and Bengal and which he subsequently compiled and used in the writing of his two-volume Political and Statistical Account of the British Settlements in the Straits of Malacca. See William Albert Samuel Hewins, ‘Newbold, Thomas John’ in Sidney Lee (ed), Dictionary of National Biography, Vol 40 (London: Smith, Elder & Co, 1894), at 314–315.

2The Temenggong Sree Maharajah was an official of the former Johor royal court with sovereignty over Singapore and a number of northern islands in the northern part of the Riau Archipelago. Loosely speaking, he was a kind of minister in charge of justice, defence, police and markets. See Carl Trocki, Prince of Pirates: The Temenggongs and the Development of Johor and Singapore 1784–1885, 2 ed (Singapore: NUS Press, 2007), at 21 & 24. At this time, the Temenggong was Abdul Rahman who was in office from 1806 till his death in 1825. Abdul Rahman had moved to Singapore island from either Riau or Bulang (Pulau Bulan near Batam) in 1818.

3[Song: Medical Topography of Singapore, vol iii, Logan’s Journal (1848)]. See Robert Little, ‘An Essay on Coral Reefs as the Cause of Blakan Mati Fever and of the Fevers in Various Parts of the East, Part I: On the Medical Topography of Singapore, Particularly on its Marshes and Malaria’ (1848) 3(8) Journal of the Indian Archipelago & Eastern Asia 449, at 472.

4Abdullah bin Abdul Kadir (1797–1854), better known as Munshi Abdullah was a literary pioneer of Arab-Indian descent. Born in Malacca, he was the fifth and sole surviving child of Sheikh Abdul Kadir. Abdullah was proficient in English, Arabic, Tamil, Hindi and Malay and was an acclaimed translator and teacher. Indeed, it was his many students who called him munshi or munsyi, meaning ‘teacher’. His many writings made him famous and won him the epithet, ‘Father of Modern Malay Literature’. In 1810, when Raffles arrived in Malacca, he hired Abdullah as an interpreter and in the course of his travels with Raffles, became a keen observer and recorder of everyday life and events. His book, the Hikayat Abdullah (1843) is an autobiographical account of his life and observations. See generally, AH Hill, The Hikayat Abdullah (1955) 29(3) Journal of the Malayan Branch of the Royal Asiatic Society. Song used the 1874 translation by John Turnbull Thomson – JT Thomson, Hakayit Abdulla: Translations from the Hakayit Abdulla (bin Abdulkadar), Munshi, with comments (London: HS King, 1874).

5Major William Farquhar (1774–1839) was the first Resident and Commandant of Singapore. A career soldier with the British East India Company, Farquhar first came to the Straits when he was Chief Engineer in an expeditionary force that captured Malacca from the Dutch in 1795. From 1803 to 1818 he was Resident of Malacca, and from 1813 to 1818, also concurrently its Commandant. Farquhar was on the verge of returning to Britain when he was summoned to join Raffles in his expedition to find a new trading post ‘in the Eastward’ and was with Raffles when the expedition landed in Singapore in January 1819. Raffles appointed Farquhar the first Resident and Commandant of Singapore in 1819. However, the two men were to have many fundamental differences over the next few years and in 1823, Raffles relieved Farquhar of his appointment. Farquhar returned to Scotland and later complained about his treatment but to no avail. He was promoted to the rank of Colonel in 1829 and Major-General in 1837. See John Bastin, ‘Farquhar, William (1774–1839)’, Oxford Dictionary of National Biography (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004) at <http://www.oxforddnb.com/view/article/67783> (accessed 9 July 2014).

6JT Thomson, Hakayit Abdulla: Translations from the Hakayit Abdulla (bin Abdulkadar), Munshi, with comments (London: HS King, 1874), at 118.

7Ibid, at 122.

8Raffles to Duchess of Somerset, 11 Jun 1819. See Sophia Raffles, Memoir of the Life and Public Services of Sir Thomas Stamford Raffles (London: John Murray, 1830), at 383.

9Raffles to Farquhar, 25 June 1819, in ‘Notices of Singapore’ (1853) 7 Journal of the Indian Archipelago and Eastern Asia, at 333.

10Article 2, Arrangements Made for the Government of Singapore, June 1819. See Roland St John Braddell, The Law of the Straits Settlements: A Commentary, Reprint with introduction by MB Hooker (Kuala Lumpur: Oxford University Press, 1982), at 148–149.

11‘Council Chamber or Court House’ – see Sir Frank A Swettenham, Vocabulary of the English and Malay Languages with notes, Vol 2 (Shanghai, Hongkong, Singapore & Yokohama: Kelly & Walsh, 1910), at 120.

12The Singapore Chronicle was Singapore’s first newspaper. It commenced publication on 1 January 1824 as the Singapore Chronicle and Commercial Register, and was originally owned and edited by Francis James Bernard, son-in-law of Major William Farquhar. Bernard only edited a few issues of the Chronicle before handing the editorship to Resident John Crawfurd, who edited it till 1826 when it was taken over by James Loch. The paper, which functioned as a semi-official gazette shut down in 1837. See CA Gibson-Hill, ‘The Singapore Chronicle (1823–37)’ (1953) 26(1) Journal of the Malayan Branch of the Royal Asiatic Society, at 175.

13The words in quote are inexact. The original reads: ‘From an insignificant fishing village, the port is now surrounded by an extensive town, and the population does not fall short of ten or twelve thousand souls, principally Chinese.’ See Raffles to Duke of Somerset, 20 Aug 1820, in Sophia Raffles, Memoir of the Life and Public Services of Sir Thomas Stamford Raffles (London: John Murray, 1830), at 465–466.

14Farquhar to Raffles, 31 Mar 1820, in Sophia Raffles, Memoir of the Life and Public Services of Sir Thomas Stamford Raffles (London: John Murray, 1830), at 444.

15Raffles to Captain CE Davis, George Bonham & Alexander L Johnston, 4 Nov 1822 in ‘Notices of Singapore’ (1854) 8 Journal of the Indian Archipelago and Eastern Asia, 101, at 106–107.

16According to historian Hsu Yun Tsiao (1905–1981), Tan Che Sang’s real name was simply Tan Sang and that the ‘Che’ was added on as a Hokkien form of address for younger uncle: Chek or (Shu). See (Singapore: Youth Book Company, 1961), at 27–28. See also (Singapore: Youth Book Company, 2007), at 55. There are several variations to the spelling of his name: Tan Che Sang, Tan Chi Sang, Tan Cheh Sang, Tan Chisang, and Tan Chee Sang.

17Some accounts have Tan’s Chinese name as but this is highly improbable, given that his real name was Tan Sang . See Hsu, ibid.

18This is almost certainly erroneous. According to historian Hsu Yun Tsiao, Tan was born in Fujian province and not in Canton or Quangzhou. See Hsu, ibid.

19One account states: ‘The room in which he died was literally surrounded with coffers of silver and most valuable goods, and a tiger’s skin in the centre of it upon which he slept.’ See ‘Funeral of a Chinese Miser’ Singapore Free Press & Mercantile Advertiser 14 Jul 1836, at 1.

20This account of Tan Che Sang is almost certainly drawn from a contemporary account by George Windsor Earl, The Eastern Seas or Voyages and Adventures of the Indian Archipelago in 1832–33–34 (London: Wm H Allen & Co, 1837), at 364–365, which reads:

The emigrants from China are chiefly mechanics, agriculturists, and labourers, but many are also engaged in commerce. The most wealthy of the latter is Che Sang, a miserly old man, who appears to great disadvantage when compared with the liberal and well-informed Chong Long. His sole aim has been the acquirement of riches, and he is supposed to possess immense wealth. His cash is deposited in a number of iron chests, among which he always sleeps. It is said that a considerable portion of this treasure has been acquired by gambling, to which he is much addicted. On one occasion fortune deserted him, and he lost a considerable sum, which so terribly disconcerted the old man, that he took a most solemn oath never to touch dice again, and, to punish himself for his indiscretion, and as a momento of his oath, he cut off the first joint of one of his little fingers. The ruling passion, however, proved too strong and he soon embarked in gambling as deeply as ever.

21Estimates of the number of people at his funeral vary between 5,000 and 13,000. See ‘Funeral of a Chinese Miser’ Singapore Free Press & Mercantile Advertiser 14 Jul 1836, at 1.

22This burial ground was what came to be known as Tiong Lama near Sepoy Lines. The Heng Shan Ting Temple was originally the ‘joss house’ of this cemetery which had been founded by See Hoot Kee (or Si Hoo Keh), the wealthiest Hokkien in Singapore.

23Tan was certainly an important and influential leader of the Hokkien community. Indeed, he was considered to be only second to See Hoot Kee (or Si Hoo Keh) in terms of wealth and influence. See (Hongkong: Chinese University of Hongkong, 1970), at 7–8. It was also reported that Tan was asked to settle a dispute involving three Chinese men who struck down a poor woman and he had permission of the government to sentence them to receive a dozen lashes each, inflicted on them publicly with a rattan. See Yen Ching-Hwang, ‘Class Structure and Social Mobility in the Chinese Community in Singapore and Malaya 1800-1911’ (1987) 21(3) Modern Asian Studies 417, at 436.

24Tan was reputedly involved with the Hokkien triads. See (Hongkong: Chinese University of Hongkong, 1970), at 7–8.

25Tan bought a warehouse at Hill Street from the Resident, William Farquhar. Farquhar, who lived at the junction of Hill Street and St Andrew’s Road, had built this warehouse across from his own home. Later in 1822–23, as a result of Raffles’ resettlement plan, Tan moved his warehouse to Commercial Square (now Raffles Place) but kept this Hill Street site till his death. His title, Lease No 298 was issued on 11 June 1827. See Leong Foke Meng, ‘Singapore: The Real Estates Of William Farquhar (1774–1839), John Crawfurd (1783–1868), And Their Families’ (2004) 77(1) Journal of the Malaysian Branch of the Royal Asiatic Society 23–42, at 28. Lee Kip Lin has, however, suggested that Tan bought his Hill Street house from DS Napier instead of Farquhar but he offers no reference for this assertion. See Lee Kip Lin, The Singapore House 1819–1942 (Singapore: Times Editions & Preservation of Monuments Board, 1988), at 77.

26LN Hull (Acting Secretary) to Lieutenant-Colonel Farquhar, Resident, 4 Feb 1823, in ‘Notices of Singapore’ (1853) 7 Journal of the Indian Archipelago and Eastern Asia 325, at 336.

27See ‘A Regulation prohibiting Gaming Houses and Cock-pits and for Suppressing the Vice of Gaming at Singapore’ in ‘Notices of Singapore’ (1854) 8 Journal of the Indian Archipelago and Eastern Asia 329–330.

28Ibid, at 330.

29Crawfurd to George Swinton, 1 Jul 1823, ibid, at 332.

30Sir John Thomas Claridge was the first Recorder of the Court of Judicature of Penang, Malacca and Singapore. This was the first court with jurisdiction over all three territories of the Straits Settlements. He was educated at Christ Church, Oxford where he graduated with a BN in 1813, and was called to the Bar at the Middle Temple in 1818. Claridge, who served from 1826 to 1829, was a controversial figure and was subsequently recalled on grounds of insubordination. See Robert P Dod (ed), The Peerage, Baronetage and Knightage of Great Britain and Ireland for 1856 (London: Whittaker & Co, 1856), at 169.

31Robert Fullerton (1773–1831) was Governor of Penang from 1824 to 1826 and first Governor of the Straits Settlements from 1826 to 1829. See Walter Makepeace, Gilbert Edward Brooke and Roland St. John Braddell (eds), One Hundred Years of Singapore, Vol 1 (London: John Murray, 1921), at 82–83.

32Sir Samuel George Bonham (1803–1863) was Resident Councillor of Singapore from 1833 to 1836 and he succeeded Kenneth Murchison as Governor of the Straits Settlements (1836–1843) before being appointed Governor of Hong Kong in 1848. He retired in 1854. He was the son of Captain George Bonham who worked for the British East India Company. Bonham Street in Singapore is named after him. See Justin Corfield, Historical Dictionary of Singapore (Plymouth: Scarecrow Press, 2011), at 40.

33JT Thomson, Hakayit Abdulla: Translations from the Hakayit Abdulla (bin Abdulkadar), Munshi, with comments (London: HS King, 1874), at 171.

34Preamble to Common Gaming Houses Ordinance Number V.

35See GM Reith, Handbook of Singapore, 1 ed (Singapore: The Singapore & Straits Printing Office, 1892), at 6–7, which reads: ‘The next year (1823) was important in many respects. A Chinaman, Seah Eu Chin, is said to have started gambier and pepper planning on the island, an industry which had much to do with the early prosperity of the Settlement.’

36Thomas Church (1798–1860) was Resident Councillor of Singapore from 4 March 1837 until his retirement in 1856. He was formerly Deputy Resident at Malacca (1828–1832). See Justin Corfield, Historical Dictionary of Singapore (New York: Scarecrow Books, 2011), at 96 (Call no.: 959.57003 COR-[HIS]).

37Logan’s Journal is the popular name for the Journal of Indian Archipelago and Eastern Asia that was founded and edited by the noted lawyer and publisher, James Richardson Logan (1819–1869). The journal was first published in 1847 and folded in 1862. Through the journal, Logan single-handedly shaped public opinion on matters relating to the Straits Settlements. Logan was based in Penang and was also noted for publishing much important official and academic material concerning the Straits. He died on 20 October 1869 of malaria and is buried in Penang. The people of Penang erected a monument – the Logan Memorial – in the grounds of Penang’s old courthouse in his memory. With the massive renovation to the court complex, the memorial was moved to its current location in Light Street.

38This should read: ‘Annual Remittances by Chinese Immigrants in Singapore to Their Families in China’ (1843) 2 Journal of the Indian Archipelago and Eastern Asia 283–290.

39See ‘General Sketch of the Numbers, Tribes and Avocations of the Chinese in Singapore’ (1847) 1 Journal of the Indian Archipelago and Eastern Asia 35–37.

40Colonel William James Butterworth (1801–1856) was Governor of the Straits Settlements from 1843 to 1855, the longest-serving Governor of the Straits. He was the son of Captain William Butterworth of the Royal Navy, who died during the Battle of Trafalgar. He joined the army in Madras where he rose through the ranks to become Lieutenant-Colonel in the 38th Madras Regiment. An aloof and pompous figure, he was known as the ‘Great Butterpot’. See Justin Corfield, Historical Dictionary of Singapore (Plymouth: Scarecrow Press, 2011), at 46–47.

41Also sometimes spelt ‘Tan Ah Hung’. Tan’s date of birth and death are unknown. He was appointed first Captain China of Perak in the 1830s. See Wong Choon San, The Gallery of Chinese Kapitans (Singapore: Ministry of Culture, 1963), at 68.

42His name has variously been spelt Seah Cheoh Seah, Seah Chak Seah, Seah Cho Sia and Seah Cho Seah. Seah was born in 1846 and died on 25 November 1885 aged just 39. With his father, he ran the Alexandra gunpowder magazine at Tanah Merah Kechil as its general manager from 31 July 1869 (see The Straits Calendar & Directory for the Year 1870, at 416–417). He also represented the Chinese community to receive Prince Albert Victor of Wales and Prince George (later King George) in 1882 during their visit to Singapore. Seah Cheo Seah built a large mansion along North Boat Quay for his father in 1872 – one of the four big chu of the Teochews. See Chapter 10 of this volume.

43Also spelt Seah Eng Keat. Both variants of his Chinese name have been used. He was born in 1867 and died in 1955 at his home at 205 Joo Chiat Place (Singapore Free Press, 16 Jul 1955, at 20). At the time of his death, Seah Peng Hong was listed as his surviving son; his daughter, Seah Neo Chee (Mrs Ng Siew Gim), had predeceased him on 11 Apr 1928. Seah’s first wife died in January 1914 (Straits Times, 8 Jan 1914, at 8), and in 1915, he married Yap Nyat Jin, widow of the late Lim Kup Cheong. Yap was the daughter of Yap Kwan Seng, Captain China of Kuala Lumpur (Straits Times, 11 Jan 1915, at 6). Eng Keat and his brother Eng Kun were fond of horse racing and owned several horses. The two brothers also sold in 1913, a 999-year lease on a huge triangular plot of land at the junction of Battery Road and Bonham Street (‘A Big Land Deal’ Straits Times, 11 Jul 1913, at 9).

44Variously spelt Seah Eng Koon, Siah Eng Kuh and Seah Eng Keong. He was born in 1873 in Singapore and was educated at the Anglo-Chinese School and Raffles Institution. In 1901, he took control of his father’s pineapple canning business, Chop Chin Giap which produced Tiger Brand and Combat Brand canned pineapples which were popular in Europe and in Asia. The business ceased operations just before World War I when the prices of pineapples plummeted. In 1909, Eng Kun’s manager, WAB Goodall discovered a hot spring at the 13th milestone, Thomson Road. He sent samples of the water to London for testing and it was found to be of excellent quality. Seah then established the Singapore Natural Mineral Springs Company, bottled the water and sold it under the brand of Zombun. This company was later taken over by Fraser & Neave Limited in 1921. See (Singapore: EPB, 1995), at 105.

45Seah Cheo Seah’s wife, Lim Quee Poh bore him Eng Kiat and Eng Kun. He had two other sons by his concubine Lim Kah Lye: Eng Yeak and Eng Lok . In 1895, the four sons were embroiled in a court case against their uncle Liang Seah over whether the illegitimate sons were entitled to their share of inheritance from Seah Eu Chin’s $1.35 million estate. See ‘Seah Liang Seah v Seah Eng Kiat, Seah Eng Kun and Seah Eng Yeak and Seah Eng Lok (respectively infants)’, Singapore Free Press & Mercantile Advertiser 25 Sep 1895, at 3. The Supreme Court held that they were entitled.

46Seah Song Seah died sometime in the 1910s in China. See (Singapore: EPB, 1995), at 105–106.

47Sometimes also spelt ‘Seah Pek Seah’. The fourth son of Seah Eu Chin, his birth date is unknown. In 1899, together with Lim Boon Keng and Song Ong Siang, Seah was elected to the first committee of the Singapore Chinese Girls’ School. In April 1936, he was adjudged a bankrupt and was thus stripped of his Justice of the Peace office. See Straits Times, 18 Apr 1936, at 10.

48Chin Huat Hin Oil Trading Co was a partnership between Seah Peck Seah, Tan Swi Khi, Lim Kim Seng and Seah Whah Ngee. It was dissolved on 25 Jan 1914. See Straits Times 13 Jul 1914, at 6.

49Eu Chin Street is named after him. See Victor R Savage and Brenda SA Yeoh, Singapore Street Names: A Study of Toponymics (Singapore: Marshall Cavendish, 2013), at 118–119.

50This burial ground was exhumed in 1951 for the construction of five blocks of five-storeyed flats which was known as Ngee Ann Building. It is now the site of Ngee Ann City.

51Seah Eu Chin was buried on Grave Hill, adjacent to Bukit Brown Cemetery. For many years, his tomb was lost after it was covered by undergrowth. In November 2012, brothers Charles and Raymond Goh – who have spent many years hunting down and documenting tombstones – rediscovered Seah’s grave (see Rachel Boon, ‘Teochew Pioneer’s Grave Found in Toa Payoh’, Straits Times 28 Nov 2012).

52TJ Newbold, Political and Statistical Account of the British Settlements in the Straits of Malacca (London: John Murray, 1839), Vol 1, at 286.

53[Song: British Settlements in the Straits of Malacca (1839)]. See Ibid.

54Ibid, at 287.

55JT Thomson, Hakayit Abdulla: Translations from the Hakayit Abdulla (bin Abdulkadar), Munshi, with comments (London: HS King, 1874), at 206.

56Ibid.

57[Song: Manners and Customs of the Chinese]. See, JD Vaughan, The Manners and Customs of the Chinese of the Straits Settlements (Singapore: Mission Press, 1879). Jonas Daniel Vaughan (1825–1891) was a sailor, public official and lawyer. Between 1851 and 1867, he served as Superintendent of Police in Penang, Master Attendant in Singapore, Police Magistrate and Assistant Resident Councillor and was elected to the Municipal Council. He was called to the Bar at the Middle Temple in 1869 and in addition to operating an active practice, found time to guest edit the Straits Times and the Singapore Free Press, whilst contributing numerous historical articles to their pages. He was also artistically and musically gifted. In October 1891, while on the way home from Perak, Vaughan was lost at sea and was presumed to have fallen overboard. See Duncan Sutherland, ‘Jonas Daniel Vaughan’ Singapore Infopedia, <http://eresources.nlb.gov.sg/infopedia/articles/SIP_1826_2011-08-11.html> (accessed 1 Jul 2014).

58JD Vaughan, The Manners and Customs of the Chinese of the Straits Settlements (Singapore: Mission Press, 1879) at 92.

59Alternatively spelt See Hood Kee, See Hoot Kee, Seet Hoot Kee, and Si Hoot Kee, he was born on 28 Oct 1793 in Malacca and died on 26 Sep 1847 in Malacca. He was the eldest son of See Tiong Ham (1751–1804). In 1793, he married Tan Choon Neo and among his sons were Eng Watt, Eng Moh, Moh Guan, Koon Guan, and Tek Guan. See Hood Keh arrived in Singapore in 1826 and quickly became an important leader of the Hokkien bang. He contributed significantly to the building and running of the Heng Shan Ting Temple and also the Thian Hock Keng Temple on Telok Ayer Street. In 1843, at the age of 46, he returned to retire in Malacca and became the leader of the Cheng Hoon Teng Temple there. His duties at Thian Hock Keng were taken over by Tan Tock Seng. (See (Singapore: EPB, 1995), at 213). See’s sister, Keng Neo, married Tan Beng Swee, son of well-known tycoon, Tan Kim Seng. In 1827, See was recorded as having seven land grants in his name, making him the biggest land owner in Singapore at the time. (See (Hongkong: Chinese University of Hongkong, 1970), at 7–8).

60John Prince (c1772–1848) was Resident Councillor of Singapore from 15 August 1826 to 18 November 1827. He was the first person to scale Singapore’s highest hill, Bukit Timah Hill, in June 1827.

61Kenneth Murchison (1794–1854) was the third Governor of the Straits Settlements, from 1833 to 1836. Prior to that, he was Resident Councillor at Penang, and then at Singapore. On the day Murchison was appointed Governor, he left for a holiday in South Africa and over the next three years, spent much of his time away from the Straits. It was Samuel Bonham – his eventual successor – who handled most of the administration of the Straits Settlements. See Justin Corfied, Historical Dictionary of Singapore, New ed (Toronto: The Scarecrow Press, 2011), at 180.