Cylon

Asia Research Institute

Working Paper Series No. 184

Ceylonese Buddhism in Colonial Singapore:

New Ritual Spaces and Specialists, 1895-1935

Anne M. Blackburn

Department of Asian Studies, Cornell University, USA and

Asia Research Institute, National University of Singapore

amb242@cornell.edu

May 2012

ARI Working Paper No. 184 Asia Research Institute ● Singapore

2

The ARI Working Paper Series is published electronically by the Asia Research Institute of the

National University of Singapore.

© Copyright is held by the author or authors of each Working Paper.

ARI Working Papers cannot be republished, reprinted, or reproduced in any format without the

permission of the paper’s author or authors.

Note: The views expressed in each paper are those of the author or authors of the paper. They do

not necessarily represent or reflect the views of the Asia Research Institute, its Editorial Committee

or of the National University of Singapore.

Citations of this electronic publication should be made in the following manner: Author, “Title,” ARI

Working Paper, No. #, Date, www.nus.ari.edu.sg/pub/wps.htm. For instance, Smith, John, “Ethnic

Relations in Singapore,” ARI Working Paper, No. 1, June 2003, www.ari.nus.edu.sg/pub/wps.htm.

Asia Research Institute Editorial Committee

Michelle Miller - Chair

Jeremy Kingsley

Jonathan Benney

Liang Yongjia

Maureen Hickey

Peter Marolt

Tim Bunnell

Valerie Yeo

Asia Research Institute

National University of Singapore

469A Tower Block #10-01,

Bukit Timah Road,

Singapore 259770

Tel: (65) 6516 3810

Fax: (65) 6779 1428

Website: www.ari.nus.edu.sg

Email: arisec@nus.edu.sg

The Asia Research Institute (ARI) was established as a university-level institute in July 2001 as one of

the strategic initiatives of the National University of Singapore (NUS). The mission of the Institute is

to provide a world-class focus and resource for research on the Asian region, located at one of its

communications hubs. ARI engages the social sciences broadly defined, and especially

interdisciplinary frontiers between and beyond disciplines. Through frequent provision of short-term

research appointments it seeks to be a place of encounters between the region and the world.

Within NUS it works particularly with the Faculty of Arts and Social Sciences, Business, Law and

Design, to support conferences, lectures, and graduate study at the highest level.

ARI Working Paper No. 184 Asia Research Institute ● Singapore

3

Ceylonese1 Buddhism in Colonial Singapore:

New Ritual Spaces & Specialists, 1895-19352

INTRODUCTION

During the late 19th century and early years of the 20th century, Ceylonese emigration to British

colonial Malaya (now Singapore and Malaysia) rapidly intensified.3 After Singapore entered Crown

Colony status in 1867 as part of the Straits Settlements, its administration was transferred to the

Colonial Office (Gillis 2005, 6). A separate Straits Civil Service was established (Turnbull 1977, 85).

Ceylonese civil servants were increasingly sought in Singapore from the late 1880s. Development of

the Malayan Railways, beginning in the 1880s was a further catalyst for Ceylonese migration to the

Malayan peninsula and Singapore, since the British Railway Administration of Ceylon recruited locals

to the Malaysian Railway (Arseculeratne 1991, 9). Ceylonese were involved in the construction,

operation and maintenance of the railway system. Singapore's burgeoning economy attracted other

Ceylonese from one island to the other for work in commerce, trade, and a variety of white-collar

professions, as well as in the plantation sector. Movement between Ceylon and Malaya was eased

by the absence of passport formalities and travel restrictions (Arseculeratne 1991, 10). One famous

Ceylonese resident of Singapore, the jeweler B.P. de Silva to whom I refer at length below, was

drawn to Malaya on the basis of El Dorado-like stories circulating in Ceylon about the region. Malaya

was seen as a place in which to make money quickly (Areseculeratne 1991, 1).

1 I use the term 'Ceylonese' in this paper to refer to those originating from what is now Sri Lanka, while

discussing the era in which the island was widely known as Ceylon. In my usage, "Ceylonese" thus includes

those who would have identified themselves, or been identified, as Sinhalese, Tamil, Burgher, etc. On

many occasions I also refer to specifically "Sinhalese" groups and persons among the wider Ceylonese

population, where that term is used by the original sources to which I refer, or when information about

last names or spoken language suggests that particular groups and individuals would likely have

considered themselves "Sinhalese" rather than "Tamil" or "Burgher." The period discussed here appears

to have been a period of sharpening "ethnic" and linguistic-communitarian definition. Therefore, what it

was to consider oneself "Ceylonese," "Sinhalese," "Tamil," "Burgher," etc. was likely quite dynamic during

this time. Any sustained investigation of this dynamism, and the hardening of such self-other boundaries,

lies beyond the scope of this modest paper. Since this paper is intended partly for a non-specialist

readership, I have ommitted diacritical marks throughout, though I have included Chinese characters for

key terms.

2 Research for this paper was conducted under the auspices of a Three-Month Senior Visiting Research

Fellowship at the Asia Research Institute, National University of Singapore, where I enjoyed a warm

institutional welcome and good conversation. With sincere thanks I acknowledge the hospitality and

research assistance offered at the following Buddhist temples in Singapore and Malaysia, where I was

received with generosity and kindness by the resident venerable monks and lay devotees: Sri

Lankaramaya Temple, Singapore; Mangala Vihara, Singapore; Wat Ananda Metyarama, Singapore; The

Burmese Buddhist Temple, Singapore; Dhammikarama Buddhist Temple, Penang; Mahindarama, Penang.

I am grateful to the following colleagues for conversations related to this paper, temple introductions,

bibliographic references, etc.: Jack Meng-Tat Chia, Ai Lin Chua, Lawrence Chua, Ken Dean, Prasenjit Duara,

Engseng Ho, Chie Ikeya, Alexey Kirichenko, Pattana Kittiarsa, Paul Kratoska, Christian Lammerts, Hun Lye,

Mike Montesano, Ng Zhiru, Jeffrey Samuels, Ben Schonthal, Vineeta Sinha, Hue Guan Thye, and Zhang

Wenxue. Interested readers should see further the book-length study of Theravada Buddhism in Malaysia

in preparation by Jeffrey Samuels. I wish to express my thanks to the anonymous reviewer for the ARI

Working Paper Series for comments offered on an earlier version of this paper, and to Jack Meng-Tat Chia

for making available some Chinese-language materials in translation as well as adding Chinese characters

to this text.

3 See further Samuels (2011).

ARI Working Paper No. 184 Asia Research Institute ● Singapore

4

Between 1881 and 1891, the Singapore Straits Settlement saw a substantial population growth,

rising from 105, 423 males and 33, 785 females to 141, 330 males and 43, 224 females (Report of the

Census of the Straits Settlements, 1891, 10). By 1911, the total population was 311, 985, rising to

425, 912 in 1921 (Census of British Malaya, 1921). The 1891 census singled out Siamese and

Sinhalese among the "Other Nationalities" characterized by particularly strong growth. During the

preceding decade, the Siamese population had increased 71.5% and Sinhalese 254.7%. Yet the total

number of Sinhalese in the Singapore Straits Settlement remained small. 159 were enumerated in

1891, and 176 in 1911. By 1901, the number of Sinhalese in the Singapore Settlement had reached

244 according to census reports (Report of the Census of the Straits Settlements, 1901 and 1911). It

is harder to discern the size of Singapore's wider Ceylonese population since Ceylon Tamils were

submerged within the wider category of Tamils/Indians and Ceylon Burghers fell unmarked within

the Eurasian category. Census information for the period does not provide reliable information

about religious identification and population.4 Ceylonese Buddhists in Malaya appear to have come

primarily from Ceylon's southern coastal belt between Galle and Matara (Arseculeratne 1991, 1).

During the 19th century, the cities of Galle and Matara, and many smaller towns and villages in

between, were sites of Buddhist institution-building, as Buddhists sought a more forceful presence

vis-à-vis Christians and foreigners in Ceylon (Malalgoda 1976, Blackburn 2010). The Ceylonese

Buddhist population in Singapore was a bachelor community initially, with more settled families

forming only in the 1920s (Arseculeratne 1991, 9). Ceylonese Buddhists naturally sought access to

Buddhist ritual space and ritual specialists, especially in response to illness and death. Judging from

newspaper reports, other non-Buddhist Ceylonese, especially of the professional classes, expressed

occasional interest in Buddhist institutions and festivals, perhaps partly as a form of identification

with home-country language and cultural style. However, Ceylonese Buddhist institutions were not

established quickly in the colony. There was little in the way of ritual space and specialists for them

or for other Buddhists -- such as the Siamese and Burmese (including those who might now be

referred to in some scholarly circles as Sino-Thai and Sino-Burmese) -- who shared with the

Ceylonese an orientation towards Pali-language scripture and ritual. By the late 1930s, however,

Sinhalese, Thai, and Burmese Buddhist institutions were more firmly established in Singapore and,

moreover, had begun to attract attention from Singapore's Chinese Buddhist population.

In this paper, drawing on temple histories and newspaper records, as well as studies of late 19th- and

early 20th- century religious and social life in Singapore and some oral histories, I develop the first

detailed account of the development of Ceylonese Buddhism in colonial-period Singapore. In doing

so, I attempt to describe and analyze the colonial-period development of Buddhist spaces in

Singapore that were oriented towards Pali-language authoritative texts and liturgy, focusing on

Ceylonese Buddhism but alert also to the activities of Thai and Burmese Buddhists. In the pages that

follow, I frequently use the term “southern Asian Buddhist” as a way of collectively referring to

Buddhists who practiced Buddhism according to the forms of Buddhism that characterized the

geographical areas we now refer to as the nation-states of Burma, Thailand, Laos, and Sri Lanka.

Buddhists in these areas (and Cambodia to a significant extent) were (and are) linked by their shared

assent to Pali-language authoritative texts and commentaries (a Buddhist “canon”). From at least the

second millennium C.E. onward (and probably much earlier in parts of the region), at least some

monastic Buddhists in each of these geographic areas understood themselves to exist within an

interactive Buddhist community linked by a shared doctrinal-commentarial tradition, similar ways of

4 Religion was first investigated in the 1911 census, and then not as a required category for self-ascription

(Census of British Malaya, 1921).

ARI Working Paper No. 184 Asia Research Institute ● Singapore

5

recounting Buddhist histories, and – to at least some extent – monastic lineages that crossed the

borders of local polity and local language. 5

In contrast to Burma and Ceylon, British colonies in which Pali-oriented Buddhists were the religious

and cultural majority, Sinhalese, Thai, and Burmese Buddhists in Singapore lived as religious

minorities vis-à-vis forms of Chinese Buddhism and other Chinese traditions, as well as Hinduism,

Christianity and Islam. While some Thai and Burmese Buddhists likely experienced a greater cultural

and linguistic affinity with Singaporean and wider Malayan Chinese worlds, given a history of

Chinese migration to, and sustained commercial engagement with, the region and a greater

likelihood of familiarity with one or more southern Chinese languages, Ceylonese Buddhists

functioned at a greater distance -- linguistically and in terms of cultural style. As spaces for Buddhist

ritual conducted in Pali language developed in Singapore, non-monastic Buddhists took the lead. The

cultivation of ritual space preceded the presence of monastic ritual specialists, who required the

financial backing of lay supporters as well as a network of transport and accommodation in Malaya.

Strikingly, in these early years, both lay and monastic Buddhists crossed ethnic and linguistic lines in

order to make possible access to Buddhist rituals and sermons. For Ceylon's Buddhists, hampered by

small numbers and limited capital, establishing stable Buddhist ritual space and obtaining steady

access to ritual specialists was a substantial challenge. This challenge could only be met -- and met

precariously -- by shifting alliances and collaborations with other southern Asian Buddhists in

Singapore and wider Malaya oriented toward Pali-language texts and ritual, as well as with Chinese

Buddhists whose Buddhist heritage owed more to Mahayana Buddhist traditions and Chinese-

language Buddhist texts.

I focus on the period between 1895 and 1935 for several reasons. The first substantial references to

Ceylonese and Sinhalese Buddhist activities in English-language Singaporean press arise in 1895, by

which time Singapore was also established as one of the southern Asian nodal points for Buddhist

activists associated with the trans-regional activities of the Theosophical Society and the Maha Bodhi

Society.6 Moreover, by 1895, the combination of railway, colonial administration and commercial

development had drawn more Ceylonese to Singapore. By 1909, the population was large enough to

help support A.P. M. Daniel's Lanka Hotel, which opened that year.7 1935 marks the consolidation of

Ceylonese Buddhist presence in Singapore and wider Malaya, thanks in large part to the missionary

monastic work of Venerable Narada, a monk active in developing Buddhist institutions within the

region that became Malaysia and Singapore. In 1934, Venerable Mahaweera, another Ceylonese

monk, took up permanent residence in Singapore. Moreover, by 1935 Singapore's Chinese Buddhists

began to constitute a substantial presence in Ceylonese Buddhist ritual space. Their presence, and

5 It is far from evident that Buddhists of the late 19th and early 20th centuries oriented towards Pali-language

authoritative texts and liturgy understood themselves as participants in "Theravada Buddhism."

Newspaper articles from the period examined here rarely refer to "Theravada" or "Mahayana" Buddhism.

Use of the term "Theravada" to refer to Buddhists and practices oriented towards Pali-language liturgy

and scripture likely became more natural from the 1930s onward, as Sinhalese Buddhist institutions in

Singapore grew stronger. The terms "Northern" and "Southern" Buddhism, and a distinction between

"Theravada" and "Mahayana" Buddhism, became more common in the first half of the 20th century, partly

in relation to new international Buddhist fora. On the dynamic history of "Theravada/Theravadin" as a

term of reference among Pali-using Buddhists, see Skilling (2009) and Skilling, Carbine, and Ciuzza (2012).

6 The southern Asian Theosophical presence dates to 1880 in Ceylon, while the Maha Bodhi Society was

established in Ceylon in 1891.

7 "'Lanka' is the name of the Ceylonese hotel situated opposite the Tank Road Railway Station which has

earned a great reputation for its Ceylon curries and other delicious Indian dishes. Filling a long-felt want

when it was started six years ago, it is now a popular resort of assistants, clerks, and others employed at

outstations and estates who come into town for the week-end" (Malaya Tribune, 1 May 1915).

ARI Working Paper No. 184 Asia Research Institute ● Singapore

6

the internal divisions within Ceylonese Buddhist temple life catalyzed by it, mark the opening of a

new chapter in the history of Singapore's Pali-using Buddhist world.

A striking feature of Singapore's Buddhist history during the period examined here, prior to 1935, is

the dynamism evident within Chinese Buddhist circles. The 1920s witnessed an increase in the

monasticization of Mahayana Buddhism in Singapore, as well as continued reflections on religious

“reform” across Chinese Buddhist and Confucian circles. In the early years considered here,

Buddhists oriented towards Pali Buddhist texts sometimes collaborated with Buddhists focused on

Chinese Buddhist texts in order to secure access to Buddhist ritual and devotional space. By the end

of this period, some Chinese Buddhists (including, but not limited to, Anglophone Chinese) sought

access to new forms of Buddhist practice via Ceylonese Buddhist monks conversant in English and

Malay. The history of Pali-oriented Buddhism in Singapore (and, indeed, in wider Malaya) during the

late 19th and early 20th centuries is thus one that reveals interesting forms of institutional

collaboration and cross-fertilization across the borders of Mahayana and "Theravada" Buddhism,

and Chinese-language and Pali-language liturgical space. In the conclusion to this paper, I note some

of the limitations of this article that stem from my lack of access to Chinese-language sources. There

I also suggest some new lines of inquiry for historians of Chinese Buddhism interested in the

Malayan interactions between Chinese Buddhists and southern Asian Buddhists.

1895-1920: Early Ceylonese Buddhist Ritual Experiments and Alliances

B.P. de Silva, whose jewelry shop in Singapore (and later Penang) gained an attractive reputation

and eminent clients during the course of the 19th century, established the Singapore business in

1872 (Arseculeratne 1991, 22). He had reached Singapore with his father, a traveling jeweler. They

selected Singapore as their center for commerce in the region (de Silva 1998, 15). De Silva, originally

from the Galle District of southern Ceylon, was an important early figure in Ceylonese, Buddhist and

Theosophical networks connecting the young Crown Colony with Ceylon and Buddhist Southeast

Asia.8 Given his growing stature in Singapore's commercial circles, his involvement in Buddhist

activities throughout the late 19th and early 20th centuries was considered worthy of note by the

local press. In April 1895, for the first time in the 1890s, the Straits Times announced that de Silva's

Singapore shop would be closed for "Sinhalese New Year," a harvest festival observed in Ceylon by

Sinhalese and Tamils during the March-April period. There seems to have been no obvious temple

space for de Silva to undertake ritual merit-making that might have augmented the central domestic

rituals intended to assure harmony and prosperity.

Yet by December 1898 (Hue Guan Thye, personal communication, 3 November 2010), a new

Buddhist temple space was envisaged for Singapore, one that would develop at the intersection of

Chinese Buddhist and Sinhalese Buddhist interests. As the Straits Times noted in the context of an

article on Burmese and Ceylonese Buddhist delegates to Bangkok, "…the Singapore Buddhists,

having been stirred by the enthusiasm of an ascetic Chinese Buddhist priest [from Fujian (Singapore:

The Encyclopedia 2006, 74)], Sak Hien [Xian Hui 賢慧,], who had spent six years in Ceylon in

meditation,9 are going to have a big Buddhist temple erected in Balestier Road." The site, near what

is now Jalan Toa Payoh, was in fact reached from Balestier Road probably via Kim Keat Road. Fifty-six

acres of land had reportedly been donated by Low Kim Pong (Liu Jinbang 劉金榜) of Tanglin (Straits

Times, 29 December 1899), described by Song as a "Hokkien leader," in collaboration with Yeo Poon

8 This is evident from the diaries of the Anagarika Dharmapala who mentions de Silva as early as 1889 (23-

24 January 1889, 29 May 1889). The Singapore branch of The Theosophical Society started under the

Ceylon branch in that year.

9 See also Ong (2005, 43).

ARI Working Paper No. 184 Asia Research Institute ● Singapore

7

Seng [Yan Baoshuang 顏寶雙] (Song 1985, 107). Low Kim Pong was an influential leader of the

Fujianese community in Singapore. Starting in the herbal business, he expanded into finance, real

estate, and transport to become one of the wealthiest Chinese in the region (Hue Guan Thye,

personal communication, 3 November 2010). De Silva supervised construction of the temple and

contributed to the building fund (Straits Times, 29 December 1899).

According to an inscription erected at the temple in 1920, in the past, Singapore did not originally

have a monastery; when it had [a monastery], Liangshan Shuanglin Chan Monastery [蓮山雙林禪寺]

was the first. It started from the benevolent intentions of Low Kim Pong [Liu Jinbang 劉金榜], who

offered land and donated gold, and invited Chan Master Xian Hui 賢慧 from Mount Songyi [宋怡]

Lineage of the Linji [臨濟] [House] to establish the monastery. The master ordained Xing Hui 性慧

into the renowned [dharmic] family. [He] first erected the backyard in the year of Wuxu (1898) in

order to [practice] meditation. Thereafter, faithful devotees around the island such as Yan 顏, Qiu 邱,

Chen 陳, Lin 林, and others, as well as Ceylonese traders [who were] benefactors from various port

cities, equally and joyously donated to the Triple Gems (“An Inscription on the Donation Appeal for

the Construction of Lianshan Shuanglin Chan Monastery 募建蓮山雙林寺碑記,” translated by Jack

Meng-Tat Chia, personal communication, 2 April 2012).

The Balestier Road Temple, as it was often called, and which came to be known also as Shuang Lin

Monastery (Shuanglin Chansi 雙林禪寺), Siong Lim Temple, Siang Lin Temple, Low Kim Pong Temple,

and Kim Keat Road Temple (Khoon Chee Vihara 2009, 13) was active (though still incomplete) in

early 1901 since a "full moon festival" and fireworks were held at the "new Balestier Road temple" in

March of that year (Straits Times, 7 March 1901).10 One ritual hall was completed in 1905, while the

main image hall -- Mahavira Hall (Daxiong Baodian 大雄寶殿) -- was finished in 1907 (Lian Shan

Shuan Lin Monastery pamphlet).11 "The heavy cost of the temple and its furnishings is met out of

subscriptions and donations from Ceylon, Siam, Burmah, and China. Rich Chinese residents here

have also contributed liberally. A high priest presides over the temple, which has a monastery and

nunnery attached" (Straits Times, 7 March 1901). This "high priest" was presumably the temple's

first abbot, the Ch'an monk Venerable Xian Hui. Xian, and the temple itself, was "affiliated" with Xi

Chan Monastery (Xichan Si 西禪寺) in Fuzhou (福州) (Khoon Chee Vihara 2009, 10, 14-17).12 Xian Hui

reached Singapore en route to Fuzhou County, Fujian, with twelve monks and nuns (including

members of his own family),13 after six years of pilgrimage to India, Ceylon, and Burma (Hue Guan

Thye, personal communication, 3 November 2010). After Xian Hui’s death in 1901, Xing Hui

succeeded as abbot but died soon thereafter. Construction of the temple was completed under the

leadership of Xing Hui's student, Ming Guang (明光). In 1917, Venerable Pu Liang (普亮), who had

reached Singapore with other Chinese monks in 1912, became abbot of the temple, which was

restored and expanded under his leadership (Khoon Chee Vihara 2009, 10, 14-17).14

10 This news coverage contradicts Singapore: The Encyclopedia, which dates construction of the temple to

1903 (2006, 74).

11 See also, “An Inscription on the Donation Appeal for the Construction of Lianshan Shuanglin Chan

Monastery” dated to 1920, translated by Jack Meng-Tat Chia (personal communication, 2 April 2012).

12 According to the historical plaques at Shuang Lin Temple, Xian Hui had become a disciple of the Xi Chan

monastery's abbot before his departure for South Asia, and modeled Shuang Lin temple after Xi Chan

while affiliating with it.

13 Information presented on historical plaques at Shuang Lin Temple.

14 This list of abbots is supported by “An Inscription on the Donation Appeal for the Construction of Lianshan

Shuanglin Chan Monastery” dated to 1920, translated by Jack Meng-Tat Chia (personal communication, 2

April 2012).

ARI Working Paper No. 184 Asia Research Institute ● Singapore

8

At this time de Silva was surely aware of efforts underway among the Ceylonese of Kuala Lumpur to

establish a Buddhist temple in the Brickfields neighborhood of the city, and those Kuala Lumpur

developments may have helped stimulate his interest in developing a temple site for Singapore. The

foundation stone for the Brickfields temple was laid in 1894, although fundraising and administrative

difficulties appear to have delayed construction of the temple itself until the first decade of the

twentieth century (de Silva 1998, 40, 96). In addition to ritual needs and interests driving the

involvement of the B.P. de Silva family at Shuang Lin temple-monastery, social interests undoubtedly

played a role. The family had worked hard to position itself and the company within the upper

reaches of Sinhalese, Chinese, and British colonial society. By 1901, for instance, de Silva had

received a high-level British honor, appointed Mudaliyar by the Ceylon government (Arseculeratne

1991, 22). Substantial acts of Buddhist and other charitable patronage drew attention to wealth and

status in a way that resonated across all the worlds in which B.P. de Silva made his life. Yet it was a

particular devotional orientation that made possible this intersection of Ceylonese, Southeast Asian,

and Chinese interests at the Shuang Lin temple. Sakyamuni Buddha was given pride of place in the

main image hall, flanked by Amitabha and Baisajyaguru Buddhas. Xian Hui's travels in India, Burma,

and Ceylon were motivated partly by the wish to gain devotional proximity to lands associated with

Sakyamuni Buddha. He was, according to the historical plaques at Shuang Lin temple, filled with the

"desire to visit the land the Buddha walked on." In this respect Xian Hui was just one of several

Chinese Buddhist monks who sought access to the Indic Buddhist world during this time (Ng Zhiru,

personal communication, June 2010), as Japanese Buddhist monks and clerics had done from the

late 19th century (Jaffe 2004). The Shuang Lin temple established under Xian Hui’s incumbency thus

focused on a manifestation of Buddha seen as devotionally and ritually desirable by both Xian Hui's

Chinese devotees and Pali-using Buddhists of southern Asia. Strikingly, Xian Hui's invitation to

Singapore is said to have come from a Burmese merchant,15 Gao Wanbang (高萬邦), who

encountered the monk in Ceylon (see note 12).

By 1904 Shuang Lin temple was the center of festival rituals involving Chinese and Sinhalese

Buddhists. The Straits Times noted that, "[s]pecial services will also be held at the new Chinese

Buddhist Temple at Balestier Range. This temple has been specially decorated by Mr. B.P. D'Silva"

(28 April 1904). At this time, however, the Shuang Lin temple was not the only one at which rituals

connected to the Ceylonese Buddhist calendar seem to have been observed. The "Buddhist New

Year" was observed at the Japanese Buddhist Mission based in Serangoon Road, as well as the

English Buddhist Mission in Havelock Road established in 1903 by Venerable Dhammaloka, an Irish-

15 Gao Wanbang is described as a “Burmese” merchant in the historical plaques displayed at Shuang Lin

Temple. It is possible that he was not born in Upper or Lower Burma, but rather migrated to Burma from

the Chinese mainland or from a Chinese family residing elsewhere in the wider Chinese world of the

Southeast-East Asian region. In the conclusion to this paper, I refer to such Chinese networks and

migrations at greater length.

ARI Working Paper No. 184 Asia Research Institute ● Singapore

9

American man ordained as a Buddhist monk in Burma.16 According to the recollections of Song Ong

Siang,

[t]his Mission was begun here by an Irishman, who was stated to be the first white

man to enter the Buddhist brotherhood, and who was entitled the Lord Abbot Right

Reverend U. Dhammaloka. At this time he was quite a familiar figure in the town,

attired in a yellow robe, with a clean-shaven head, and walking barefooted (1985,

369).

Like the Shuang Lin temple, Dhammaloka's mission attracted attention across ethnic and linguistic

lines, housed in a building made available by Cheang Jim Chuan. B.P. de Silva, whose work as

President of the local Theosophical Society (Arseculeratne 1991, 150) had probably exposed him to

Dhammaloka and the mission, offered a scholarship for boys attending the school. Other donors

included Cheang Jim Chuan, Tan Ban Hau, Cheang Jim Eng, and Tan Teck Soon (Straits Times, 20

January 1904). Dhammaloka's mission encouraged "all Buddhists, both European and native" to

illuminate their houses in celebration of April's new year celebrations, while the Straits Times noted

the inauguration of a new Buddhist custom for Singapore. "On Saturday we understand that Mr. B.P.

D'Silva will give food to about three thousand poor people. This is the first time in the history of

Singapore that a demonstration of this kind has been made here" (28 April 1904).

Despite its collaborative origins and its substantial size, the Shuang Lin temple was not enough to

satisfy Singapore’s Buddhists who were focused on Pali-language ritual and familiar with southern

Asian Buddhist ritual space. This perhaps owed something to the increasing presence of Chinese

Buddhist monks at the temple site, which would have made the space less familiar to Buddhists from

Ceylon, Siam, and Burma, despite a shared devotional orientation to Sakyamuni Buddha. By 1912 B.P.

de Silva was one party to a memorial "to the queen mother of Siam asking her to take the initiative

to erect a Buddhist temple in Singapore in memory of Rama V." Other supporters mentioned in the

press suggests cooperation between Thais and Sino-Thais: Tao Boo Liat and Luang Phipit were

mentioned along with de Silva, singled out by the press as a major financial backer. "The site

proposed for the memorial is that of the burial ground at Alexandra Road." The initiative intersected

with early signs of interest among southern Asian Buddhists to establish a separate Buddhist

cremation ground apart from Chinese burial grounds and the colonial cemeteries. "In this

connection the Buddhist communities of Burmah and Ceylon are also praying for permission to bury

and cremate their dead on this site, as at present there is no exclusive Buddhist place for the

16 Dhammaloka presided at a 1904 monastic ordination ceremony that caught the attention of the Malayan

press. With the assistance of Rev. Otha, head of the Japanese Mission in Singapore, a former colonial

police officer from Pahang, M.T. Courneuve, was given Buddhist novitiate ordination in a ritual involving

English and Pali chanting. Courneuve was then sent to the Burmese monastery in Penang for higher

studies. (Straits Echo, 7 October 1904). See also Song (1985, 369) and Bocking (2010). Given

Dhammaloka's apparent connections to the Theosophical Society, it is not surprising that he would have

collaborated with the Japanese Mission in Singapore. There were ties between the Theosophists and

Japanese Buddhists dating to the 1880s (Jaffe 2004, Trevithick 2006, Blackburn 2010). Dhammaloka’s

ambitious and chequered career in Singapore, Siam, and Burma has lately received attention. See Bocking

(2010), Cox (2010), and Turner (2010). According to McDougall (1956, 44) the Burmese temple in Penang

to which Corneuve traveled after his ordination was established in 1839 and its monks spoke Malay in at

least some contexts. According to The Ancient Buddhist Monuments in 22 Countries, written by the

temple's present abbot, the Penang temple dates to 1803 (Pannyavamsa 2010).

ARI Working Paper No. 184 Asia Research Institute ● Singapore

10

disposal of their dead" (Straits Times, 12 December 1912).17 However, a Siamese temple was not

established in Singapore until well into the following decade.

Meanwhile, Burmese and Sino-Burmese residents of Singapore were also restless in their search for

suitable Buddhist ritual space. The "Buddhist Temple, Kinta Road" (as it was typically referred to in

the press), opened on Kinta Road in Singapore sometime in the early 1900s judging from press

reports. However, according to information recorded at the Burmese Buddhist Temple which now

houses the image first installed at Kinta Road, the Burmese Buddhist Temple was founded

somewhere as early as 1875 by Tha Hnit.18 In any case, it appears that U Tha Hint (also referred to as

Tang Sooay Chin) took the initiative to found the Buddhist ritual site at Kinta Road in Singapore,

working with U Kyaw Gaung, a Burmese herbal medical specialist and native of Mergui.19 U Tha Hint

donated the first Buddha image for the Kinta Road site, which was joined by two images said to have

been received, respectively, from the Siamese royal court and the Ledi Sayadaw (Burmese Buddhist

Temple 2001, 35). The Kinta Road temple became one of the key locations for Buddhist ritual

activities involving Burmese Buddhists and other Buddhists (including some Chinese Buddhists,

probably of diverse origins including the Southeast Asian mainland) who focused their rituals around

Sakyamuni Buddha as imaged in mainland Southeast Asian, Pali-oriented, Buddhist style. Newspaper

reports do not clarify what ritual language was used at Kinta Road. However, the cycle of festivals

celebrated there, the mainland Southeast Asian origins of the images, and the Burmese connections

of the first temple organizers all suggest that the Kinta Road temple was a space oriented towards

Pali language and scripture rather than Chinese. The "Buddhist New Year" was celebrated in April

1916 at Kinta Road," an inaugural occasion honored by receipt of a supplementary Buddha image

from the king of Siam (Straits Times, 13 April 1916), while that temple also celebrated Pavarana (the

end of the monastic rains retreat) in September of the same year (Straits Times, 28 September 1916).

According to the Straits Times, a Burmese Buddha image earlier housed at an unspecified "Chinese

temple" was processed to Kinta Road just prior to the Pavarana celebration (23 September 1916).

That is, once there was an appropriate ritual space oriented towards southern Asian Buddhist

practice, the image was relocated from its provisional home in the Chinese Buddhist ritual world.

There is little attention to the Kinta Road site in the English-language press between 1916 and 1920,

which may reflect organizational difficulties at Kinta Road, or simply a shift in editorial and/or

contributor interests.20 However, by the 1920s Kinta Road was again referred to as a major site of

Buddhist activity in Singapore. Press reports do not indicate specifically Ceylonese Buddhist

17 This proposal to the Siamese royal court was sufficiently important to the Sinhalese of Singapore that it

induced controversy over who would represent the Sinhalese in a visit to Singapore's Consul-General for

Siam. See Straits Times, 11, 12, and 13 July 1913.

18 Historical summary on the second floor of the Burmese Buddhist Temple.

19 According to the historical summary mentioned in note 18, however,, Tha Hnit was born in Mandalay. A

souvenir volume prepared for Singapore's Burmese Buddhist Temple reports that Madame Kam Kah Neoh,

executive of the late Mr. Tan Kong Seng, donated land at Kinta Road to Mr. Tang Sooay Chin (U Tha Hnit),

who donated it to Mr. U Kyaw Gaung (also known as Khoo Teogou). U Tha Hnit appointed U Kyaw Gaung

trustee of the temple in 1907, and died in 1911 while in residence at Kinta Road. According to Ven.

Sumana Siri, Chief Sangha Nayaka of the United Kingdom and Europe, a Sinhalese-Hokkien monk from

Melaka ordained in the Sri Lankan sangha, the Kinta Road temple was built by a former Burmese monk

(personal communication 1 July 2010). The histories of the Burmese Buddhist Temple, Singapore, do not

mention that U Tha Hnit or U Kyaw Gaung spent time in robes. However, given U Kyaw Gaung's work in

medicine, it is not unlikely that he received monastic, or at least temple-based, training in Burma.

20 However, the Straits Times reported that a white marble Buddha image mounted on a teak chair had been

donated by rubber planters in Rangoon, and was to be carried in state to the Kinta Road temple. "The

Buddhist community of Burma, Ceylon, Siam, etc., are invited to partake in the ceremony" (6 March 1916).