Deification of Captain Shin
Part 1. How Captain Shin was killed by a tax kerfuffle in Sungai Linggi
Yon (2013) listed1 the following names as the holders of the office of Captain China in Sungai Ujong
- Seng Meng Lee (d. 23 August 1860) 盛明利
- Yap Ah Shak (d. 5 July 1889) 葉致英
- Yap Ah Loy (d. 15 April 1885) 葉亞來
- Wong Ying (d. 1890) 黃三伯
- Hew Sam (d. ?) 丘國安
- Ngoh Kim (d. ?) 吳長伯
- Dèng Yòubó (d. ?) 鄧佑伯
- Lee Sam (d. 1905) 李三
We can corroborate (48), (51) - (54) with the names found on a commemorative plaque in Fui Chiu Association in Seremban 森美蘭州惠州會館. The names were listed by Chin (2003) and they are given as follows:
- Shin On 盛大安
- Wong Ying 黃三伯
- Hew Sam 丘國安
- Ngoh Kim 吳長伯
- Dèng Yòubó 鄧佑伯
Chin was able to, after consulting Shin's descendants, convince himself that Shin On 盛大安 was physically identical to Seng Meng Lee 盛明利, but he was not able to explain2 why the name on the plaque was rendered differently from the usual rendering of Shin's name in known literature.
The fact that Chin was not able to immediately associate Shin On 盛大安 with Seng Meng Lee 盛明利 is not surprising given the fact that Shin On was never actually mentioned in any Chinese literature. The earliest account on Captain Shin On was written by a French missionary named Hector Charles Letessier (b. 1842, d. 1921). Letessier's paper was published in 1893, and it was distilled from data gathered from his interviews with Raja Bot bin Raja Jumaat bin Raja Jaafar (b. 1847, d. 1916), Sutan Puasa (d. 1905), and Vung Sha 翁壽 (the secretary to Captain Shin).
- According to materials circulated by the Temple and cited by Chin (2003), he was born on the 10th day of the 10th lunisolar month of 3rd year of the Reign of Daoguang 道光3年10月10日 (i.e. 12 November 18235)
- According to Zhang (1959), he was born on the 3rd day6 道光3年10月3日 (i.e. 5 November 1823);
- According to Zhang (1959), he was killed on the 7th day of the 7th lunisolar month of the 11th year of the Reign of Xianfeng 咸豐11年7月7日 (i.e. 12 August 1861, when he was 37.7 year-old)
- According to Middlebrook (1951), a war was ignited on the 12th day of the 7th lunisolar month of the 10th year of the Reign of Xianfeng 咸豐10年7月12日 (i.e.
2628 August 18607). Shin's death was implied, likely shortly thereafter, although the time gap was not explicitly mentioned.
| Year | Notes |
|---|---|
| 1843 | S. G. Bonham vacated the seat of the Governor of the Straits Settlements in January 1843 and he was replaced by E. A. Blundell. Blundell previously worked in Moulmein and Tenasserim. He was Commissioner for these Burmese provinces for many years before his relocation was orchestrated by the Earl of Ellenborough in March. However, Blundell's appointment was suddenly cancelled and he was replaced by Colonel W. J. Butterworth8 (of the 2nd Madras European Regiment). |
| 1844 | The merchants in Melaka submitted petitions challenging the Malay chiefs regarding the tin taxation scheme. |
| 1846 | The Melaka towkays were again disputing the inconsistent taxation scheme imposed by the Malay chiefs. |
| 1847 | Blundell was made the Resident Councillor of Melaka, a position which he held for two years, until 1849. |
| 1848 | Petitions were again filed for the same reason. A hostility (between the Malay chiefs and a group of Rawa miners from Sumatra) erupted and disrupted the mining works in the fields. |
| 1853 | Captain Shin donated $109 to the Kwong Tong Cemetery in Melaka. His name and title was epigraphically preserved in a stone inscription commissioned by the Kwong Tong Kongsi. This is perhaps the earliest record supporting the fact that the Captain was installed by Dato' Kelana Sendeng (d. 1872), who replaced Dato' Klana Kawal as the Malay chief of Sungai Ujong in 1850.b |
| 1855 | Butterworth was replaced by Blundell. |
| 1857 | A tin taxation tollgate on the Linggi River was dismantled by HMS Amethyst. |
| 1857 | Captain Shin donated $16 to fund the renovation project of Sam Toh Tong 三多堂 in Melaka.10 |
| 1857 | Eighty-seven (87) Chinese miners were sent by Raja Jumaat and Raja Abdullah to Klang Valley. 69 out of 87 died in the first month. |
| 1858 | Cleanup was repeated on the Rembau River. |
| 1859 | Blundell was replaced by W. O. Cavenagh. Cavenagh's appointment occurred during the post-EIC transition period. After the Indian Mutiny of 1857/58, the power of the British East India Company in India was absorbed by the Crown, but Singapore was placed directly under the Colonial Office in London only in 1867. |
| 1859 | Mines in Ampang were productionized. Tin was consolidated at Pangkalan Lumpur before it was shipped out from Klang. |
| 1860 | Dato' Bandar (Kulop11 Tunggal) was arrested (likely in February 1860) in Melaka, approximately 6 months before the August petition was filed. He was detained in Melaka for months, pending for a debt-related civil procedure. The power vacuum in the Linggi River was exploited by Dato Klana and other Malay chiefs in Rembau. An additional tax of 4,000 Spanish dollars was imposed on the miners (the old scheme was $1 per man, a fixed toll, and certain duties upon the tin passing through Sungai Linggi). The miners rejected the new tax scheme and tin stopped flowing down to Melaka. The Malay chiefs retaliated by stopping the import of rice and provisions up the river and the Chinese revolted as a result. |
| 1860 | Raja Jumaat, the administrator of Lukut, gave his permission, on 23 August 1860, for the British to build the Cape Ricardo lighthouse. |
| 1860 | A petition12 (dated 28 August 1860) was filed by the tin merchants in Melaka. The petition reported a casualty of 200 (200 killed, of out 14,000 Chinese miners) and they requested the British to intervene. Captain Shin is likely to be one of miners who did not manage to survive the riot. |
Unfortunately, the tin magnate Zhang (1959) muddied the water when he incorrectly assigned the identity of the 4th Counsel 四師爺 to Zhong Binglai 鐘炳來, who was one of Yap Ah Loy's chief fighters. Zhang's view was likely the dominant view in the 1950s and it shows that the Temple records13 which can be used to ascertain the identities of the deities worshipped in the joss house were likely lost. About 40 years later, Lee (1997) was given an opportunity to correct Zhang's mistake14, but he instead opted to offer an alternative solution. He mapped the 4th Counsel 四師爺 to Yap Ah Sze 葉四, another Huizhou martyr killed, in 1869, by a rival Chinese tribe in Kanching.
- Yon Weng Woe 阮湧俰 (2013) The social interaction between Hakka Kapitans and Chinese dialect groups in Kedah: A case study on Tee Choon Too and Low Ah Lip 吉打客家籍甲必丹與華人方言群社會的互動—— 以戴春桃與羅啟立為個案, M. A. Thesis, Institute of Chinese Studies, Universiti Tunku Abdul Rahman.
Yon's list (in p. 82) is problematic for two reasons (a) Yap Ah Shak and Yap Ah Loy are listed immediately after Shin On; (b) rectilinear sequence is assumed. The Chinese community has a habit of linking Shin On with Yap Ah Loy in many imaginary situations. In this case, we do not have hard evidence to show that the Yaps succeeded Shin On as Captain China in the Sungai Ujong tinfield. In another example, we were told by Letessier (1893) that the cult of worshipping the 4th Counsel was imported to Kuala Lumpur by a certain Tu Lien. In Zhang (1959), Tu Lien was replaced by Yap Ah Loy and we were even told that he visited the Bukit Rasah Temple on 26 October 1864 (同治3年9月26日). Yon's Sungai Ujong list was inadvisedly repeated by S. Amornwanitsak (2019), see Surasi Amornwanitsak 黃漢坤 (2019) Sheng Mingli: A Chinese Kapitan who is deified as a god in Malaysia 盛明利：馬來西亞華人甲必丹的成神過程, Chinese Studies Journal 中國學研究期刊 12(2), pp. 21 - 49. The paper is in Thai and it was published by Kasetsart University 泰國農業大學.
- Chin Soong Kead 陳嵩傑 (2003) 森美蘭州華人史話. The book was jointly published by Mentor Publishing 大將出版社 and the Chinese Assembly Hall of Negeri Sembilan 森美蘭中華大會堂. On p. 161, Chin wrote: 盛大安之名經其後裔證實是盛明利，至於為何盛明利又叫盛大安，則無法查明. A probable explanation is that Dà'ān 大安 is Shin's given name (名) and Meng Lee 明利 was his post-matriculation name (字), since the name 明利 was used as Shin's posthumuous name (諱) on his tombstone of 1870. We also want to point out that the name of Captain Shin was rendered as Seng Meng Lee 盛明利 and not Shèng Dà'ān 盛大安 in two inscriptions (1853, 1857) found in Melaka.
- The Chinese name of Bukit Sebukor is 士木閣. Voon et al. (2014), however, indiscreetly cited a non-existent placename called ‘Bukit Simuka'. See Voon Phin Keong, Ee Chong Huat, Lee Kim Sin (2014) Genesis of the Xian Shiye cult in Malaysia, Malaysian Journal of Chinese Studies 3(1), Article 3, p. 7. The source given by Voon et al. is a booklet published by Wen Guzhi 溫故知 (1988) Xian Shiye and Shiye Temple 仙師爺與師爺廟. In Wen Guzhi 温故知 (1984) 仙师爷迁居记 Relocation of the tomb of 4th Counsel, the date on Shin's tombstone was misread as 同治八年冬季吉日, and the mistake was propagated in 2002 by Ong Seng Huat 王琛發 in his book: The people of Huizhou and Negeri Sembilan 惠州人與森美蘭.
- Charles Letessier (1893) Si Sen Ta: A Chinese Apotheosis, Selangor Journal 1(12), 16 June 1893. According to Letessier, Captain Shin On was installed by the Malay chief Dato Klana Putra Sendeng (r. 1850 - 1872), who resided in Ampangan. Letessier's phonetic approximation (si = 四) offers the strongest evidence that the Captain China was deified as Si Sen Ta 四仙爺. Letessier's reconstruction of Shin On's death, on the other hand, is unlikely to be definitive given how the Sungai Ujong disturbance was started. In Middlebrook (1951), we were told that Shin was travelling away from Ampangan, with the hope that he may be received by Raja Jumaat in Lukut. But his entourage was pressured by food shortage and they made a volte-face, on their journey back to Ampangan, Shin was killed by a rival chief. Unlike Letessier, Middlebrook did not supply us any name. Interestingly, Ang (2001) adding a colorful stroke to the drama by positing that Shin was killed by a local chief of Ghee Hin, the triad opposing Hai San, which is unlikely to be correct, again given how the Sino-Malay hostility was seeded. See Ang Saw Yee (2001) Kegiatan kongsi gelap di Sungai Ujong, Negeri Sembilan (1800 - 1900), M. A. Thesis, Departement of History, University of Malaya.
- See Chin (2003), p. 73: 他誕生前數晚，其住宅祥光普照，彩色回繞，片刻忽然消逝。曾目睹異象的惠州鄉人認為是奇事。盛公於農曆十月初十午時誕生時候，天晴氣朗，清風送爽，香馥滿室，登門觀看者眾，皆認為這嬰兒將來必是偉人.
- Zhang Jingwen 張敬文 (1959) A short account of the founding of the Joss House in Kuala Lumpur 吉隆坡仙四師爺宮創廟史略 (Jílóngpō Xiānsìshīyé-gōng chuàngmiào shǐlüè). Zhang Jingwen 張敬文 (d. 4 April 1962) was a 12-year-old boy in 1885 (the year when Yap Ah Loy died) and landed Kuala Lumpur only in 1895. Zhang's incorrect view was influential since this publication is sponsored by the Temple: 葉亞來於清同治3年(歲次甲子)9月26日親往芙蓉亞沙加坑地方，恭迎仙師爺之神靈回吉隆坡以便奉祀。葉亞來與仙四師爺廟：葉亞來又於光緒8年(歲次壬午)撥送他個人地皮一塊（即今吉隆坡仙四師爺廟現址及附近的店地六段）建成此廟。光緒9年，歲次癸未仲夏月，仙四師爺廟落成開光。The date of birth and date of death cited by Zhang (1959) are frozen and set in stone by the Temple in 1916 (see SSSY (1989), p. 176). The 3rd day of the 10th lunisolar month (十月初三) is assigned as the birth date for Sin Sze Ye 仙師爺 (the deity positioned on the right) in the Temple. The birth date marked for Si Sze Ye 四師爺 (the deity on the left) is: 7th day of the 7th lunisolar month (七月初七), which, incidentally, is the date of death of Captain Shin.
- The date given by Yen Ching-huang 颜清煌 (1962) in the History of Negeri Sembilan 森美兰史 was 26 August 1860 (咸丰10年7月12日). This slightly incorrect value was cited many times by Chin (2003). Yen was not to be blamed for this error, for the incorrect Gregorian date was given by Middlebrook (1951), p. 15. The same Chinese date (咸豐10年7月12日) was likely given to Middlebrook (1951) but his Gregorian conversion was off by 2 days. Surprisingly, 咸豐10年7月12日 is the date of the petition letter in August 1860. Note that 咸豐10年7月12日 is very close to 咸豐10年7月7日 and one convenient way to connect the dots together is that Shin was killed on 23 August 1860, five days before the petition was filed by the merchants in Melaka. The date is also reasonably close to 21 August 1860, the date usually cited by Malay authors as the inception point of the riot. See Norhalim Haji Ibrahim (1998) Sejarah Linggi: Pintu gerbang sejarah pembangunan Negeri Sembilan. For context, 20 July 1860 was 1 Muharram 1277 AH. A spirit tablet of Captain Shin can be found at the Bukit Rasah Temple, the text on the tablet reads: 惠府・甲必丹諱明利・盛公府君神位・咸豐辛酉年吉旦 (The House of Hui | Captain | Posthumuous name or imina: Mingli | The spirit tablet of Lord Sheng - Xianfeng Xinyou - 11th year of the Reign of Xianfeng, i.e. between 10 February 1861 and 30 January 1862).
- Butterworth's appointment was announced on 14 June 1843. Interestingly, Brundell landed Penang on 14 June 1843 and then Singapore on 23 July 1843. Cancellation of his appointment was made public in Singapore on 24 July and he left Singapore on 27 July.
- For scale, the salary of Robert Walter Maxwell was $300 p.a. ($25 per month as the clerk to the Chief Justice), the salary of William Edward Maxwell was $600 p.a. ($50 per month as the Senior Sworn Clerk at Penang), and the salary of Peter Benson Maxwell, Jr. was $1080 p.a. ($90 per month as the Registrar of the Court at Penang). The salaries of the Maxwell's brothers was sarcastically cited by Harry Ord (b. 1819, d. 1885) as an example of power abuse by the Chief Justice of the Straits Settlements. When their father, Peter Benson Maxwell Sr, was replaced by T. Sidgreaves. Sidgreaves's salary was $11,363 p.a. See C. O. 273/19 (15 June 1868) and C. O. 273/54 (6 September 1871).
- See Chin (2003), p. 103. See also Bak Jia How 莫家浩 (2024) Opinionated reconstruction of Nanyang: Gods, demons, humans, and beasts in the Malay Peninsula 臆造南洋：馬來半島的神鬼人獸. The book was published in Taiwan by 1841 Press. A namelist (Sam Toh Tong renovation project: Sponsors and donors from Sungai Ujong and Lukut 三多堂擴建捐緣碑・芙蓉爐骨捐題銀芳) bearing the name of Seng Meng Lee 盛明利 was described by Bak. Besides the Sam Toh Tong Inscription, Captain Shin's name (甲必丹盛明利) can also be found in a 1853 inscription (廣東公司義塚題目緣碑) commissioned by Kwong Tong Kongsi 廣東公司 to commemorate her donors. See pp. 268 - 271.
- Kulop/kulup (کولڤ) is Malay word meaning foreskin or prepuce, it was a common nickname (timang-timangan) employed to refer to young uncircumcised boys. Bandar is a Persian loanword in Arabic (بندر) meaning haven, port or harbour (i.e. trade and monetary and material input, indirectly), e.g. Shahbandar (harbour master), bhaṇḍāra भण्डार (granary, treasury, keeper of donations in Indian temples, or nassho
納所 of Japanese temples). A simple way to visualize the territories of Dato' Klana and Dato' Bandar is that Klana is the land master, while Bandar is the water master. See R. J. Wilkinson (1901), p. 121, 550.
- Straits Settlements Records R38, No. 195, 6 October 1860. The full text of the petition dated 28 August 1860 can be found in Tharumaratham Chelliah (1955) War in Negeri Sembilan, Academic Exercise (B. A.), University of Malaya, Singapore. See Appendix B(2), pp. 66 - 67. See also the introductory by Khoo Kay Kim in Sherifa Khan (1986) The making of modern Negeri Sembilan: 1874 - 1898. Chelliah's B. A. thesis was referenced rather heavily by Parkinson (1960) when events in Sungai Ujong was recounted. See C. N. Parkinson (1960) British intervention in Malaya: 1867 - 1877, University of Malaya Press, Singapore, pp. 167 - 170, 175, 178, 180. The disturbance was also reported in the Singapore Free Press (6 September 1860, p. 2). Production of tin was normalized by October 1860. See Khoo (1972), p. 78 and also SSR R38 (6 October 1860). This data is not aligned with what was normally recounted in popular Chinese literature, that the length of the Sino-Malay clash was approximately 6 months.
- Only internal records kept by the Temple (although all official records prior to 1915 are lost, see SSSY (1989), p. 176) can help to answer the question of when the second deity was introduced to the Temple.
The name of the Temple can also be found rendered as 仙四師爺宫 on the main facade (The Palace of the Fourth Heavenly Counsel), this name is semantically different from the name described earlier. Here, the word ‘xian' 仙 is likely used as an adjective.
- Lee Yip Lim 李業霖 (1997) Yap Ah Loy's biography 吉隆坡開拓者的足跡: 甲必丹葉亜來的一生. The book was published by Huazi Resource and Research Centre Bhd (Centre for Malaysian Chinese Studies) 華社研究中心. Lee studied history in Nanyang University, Singapore, and he was a student of Hsu Yun-Tsiao 許雲樵 (1905 - 1981).
- Another item sponsored by Li Kaihe was an incense burner. The text on the burner is similar to the lines found on the Temple bell and they read: 沐恩弟子嘉應州黎開合敬奉・玉封四師爺䑓前・同治十一歲次壬申孟秋吉旦立・隆盛爐造.
Part 2. When was the first temple in Kuala Lumpur founded
Concerning the founding of the Temple, the most reliable source of information is the 19321 inscription 四公紀念碑, which can be found on the left side of the entrance of the reception hall or lobby of the Temple.
The inscription was dated on the 12th lunisolar month of 21st year of the Republic of China 民國21年12月吉日 and it was commissioned to commemorate the contributions of the four Marquises of Kuala Lumpur, Yap Ah Loy 葉德來 (d. 1885), Yap Ah Shak 葉致英 (d. 1889), Yap Kwan Sheng 葉觀盛 (d. 1902), and Chan Sow Lin 陳秀連 (d. 1927). The opening line of the inscription reads:
窃本廟之立乃於前清光緒初元距今將六十載矣
Approximately, we can equate the line with:
Humbly speaking, this temple was established in the 1st year of the Reign of Guangxu, of the previous Qing Dynasty, and it has been nearly 60 years since then.
The opening paragraph is extremely useful for it allows the birthyear of the Temple to be pinned down to 1875. The initial structure set up in 1875 soon required some repairs and renovations. And we were told by Zhang (1959) that between 1881 and 1883, energies were injected to the Temple to rejuvenate it. The renovation project was likely heavily sponsored by Captain Yap Ah Loy. The most important evidence to support this claim are the existence of a set of commemorative plaques and congratulatory artworks donated by Yap and the most important one is the banner bearing the following words:
祐我平安
To me, the message is worded rather strangely, and if one were allowed to speculate.2 Yap's contributions in the renovation project may have been driven by self-serving motives. People often turn to deities only when they are sick or in their most vulnerable physical or mental state, seeking comfort through incense burning and prayers to the gods. And they expect deital reciprocation comparable to their material and monetary offering.
A description of the medical condition of Yap Ah Loy in 1885 can be found in the Straits Times (20 April 1885):
. . . the Capitan had a bad cough for a long time, but refused to undergo European medical treatment, preferring to send to China for a Doctor. About three months ago, what appeared to be an abscess in the lungs burst, and after that, to all appearance, he improved, although he was never so hearty as he had before the Kwala Lumpur Spirit Farms passed into the hands of the Hokiens, which it did this last new year . . .
We have reasons to suppose that Yap Ah Loy was a very fit man and he should not have died at the age of 48. But his lungs were affected by excessive exposure to soots and fumes in the Great Fire of 1881 and despite many months of attempts to recover, he was unable to regain his health. Thus celestial power was resorted to.
- See SSSY (1989) Kuala Lumpur Sin Sze Si Ya Temple 125th anniversary commemorative special issue 吉隆坡仙四師爺廟慶祝一百二十五周年紀念特刊, p. 179. The inscription was commissioned in 1931, approximately 4 years after the death of Chan Sow Lin. The finished product, however, was dated 民國21年12月吉日 (i.e. between 27 December 1932 and 25 January 1933). Interestingly, the name of the Temple was rendered as the Palace of the Counsel 師爺宮 in the inscription. In fact, this was also the name used by Nanyang Siang Pau in 1931. And it was in continuous use by the same newspaper until in 1939, when it started to use the Palace of the 4th Heavenly Counsel 仙四師爺宮. It is not known if the change is related to the renovation works incepted in 1938 (民國27年).
- The four Chinese glyphs in running standard script (行楷書), dated on the 9th lunisolar month in the 7th year of the Reign of Guangxu Emperor 光緒7年季秋吉旦 (i.e. between 23 October 1881 and 1 November 1881, that is, after the Great Fire of 1881 but before the Great Flood of 1881):
can approximately translated into: for my wellbeing . . . The message in other artworks donated by Yap, are more normal and neutral: 鸿恩庇佑 (光緒7年, 1881), 仙德同沾 (光緒9年, 1883), 仙德遍及萬方上下尊卑同景仰・神光周乎六合士農工賈盡輸誠 (光緒9年, 1883), 代際遇升平海澨山陬同沾愷澤・民咸歌泰運風和雨化共沐恩膏 (光緒9年, 1883)
- Shi Cangjin 石滄金 (2006) 葉亞來與仙四師爺廟關係考察 《東南亞縱橫》第4期, p. 31.
| \(n\) | Nearly 60 years | Gregorian date | Chinese date |
|---|---|---|---|
| 59 years | 15 November 1873 | 同治12年歲次癸酉9月26日 | |
| 58 years | 4 November 1874 | 同治13年歲次甲戌9月26日 | |
| 1 | 57 years* | 24 October 1875* | 光緒1年歲次乙亥9月26日* |
| 2 | 56 years | 11 November 1876 | 光緒2年歲次丙子9月26日 |
| 3 | 55 years | 1 November 1877 | 光緒3年歲次丁丑9月26日 |
| 4 | 54 years | 21 October 1878 | 光緒4年歲次戊寅9月26日 |
| 5 | 53 years | 9 November 1879 | 光緒5年歲次己卯9月26日 |
| 6 | 52 years | 29 October 1880 | 光緒6年歲次庚辰9月26日 |
| 7 | 51 years | 17 November 1881 | 光緒7年歲次辛巳9月26日 |
| Year | Source | Notes |
|---|---|---|
| 1860 | Captain Shin was killed on the 7th day of the 7th month (23 August 1860, 咸豐10年7月7日). In 1916, 7/7 is the date chosen by the Temple as the birthdate or immortalization date for the 4th Counsel. | |
| 1861 | Captain Shin's spirit tablet was set up at the Bukit Rasah Temple. | |
| 1864 | SSSY (1989) | 1864 is unlikely to be correct, as it was only about 4 years after Captain Shin was killed. Apotheosis is a slow process and 4 years is rather too fast. SSSY (1989) would like us to believe that the precursor of the Temple was founded in 1864, although it is not backed by any documents or epitaphs. In fact, 1864 was used, for the first time, as the datum to engineer the age of the Temple (125 years) when the special issue was published in 1989 and it contradicts another datum point (1875) implied by the 1932 inscription. |
| 1870 | Captain Shin's remains were exhumed for the first time. They were moved from Sungai Ujong to Bukit Sebukor, Melaka. | |
| 1872 | A brass bell, bearing the words 玉封四師爺 (the 4th Counsel, knighted and immortalized by the Jade Emperor), was gifted to Bukit Rasah Temple. | |
| 1873 | ||
| 1875 | SSSY (1932) Shi (2006)3 | 1875 is reasonable as it does not contradict the 1932 inscription 四公紀念碑. |
| 1881 | ||
| 1882 | Zhang (1959) | 1882 is unlikely to be correct since Zhang also claimed that the renovation work took place between 1881 and 1883. |
| 1883 | ||
| 1893 | Father Hector Charles Letessier (of Cathedral of St John, Bukit Nanas), personally witnessed the Temple procession. | |
| 1902 | An additional deity was introduced to the Temple? | |
| 1909 | A Temple in Pudu was closed down due to her involvement in the anti-British campaign, likely sponsored by Yap Hon Chin. The eldest son of Yap Ah Loy was arrested and banished to Melaka. | |
| 1916 | SSSY (1989) | The birthdates of the heavenly counsels were officially fixed by the Temple and they are still in use today. |
Comments