Apotheosis of Captain Shin On

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 芙蓉.

48. Shèng Mínglì (b. 1823, d. 23 August 1860) 盛明利
49. Yap Ah Shak (d. 5 July 1889) 葉致英
50. Yap Ah Loy (b. 1837, d. 15 April 1885) 葉亞來
51. Huáng Sānbó 黃三伯
52. Qiū Guó'ān 丘國安
53. Wú Zhángbó 吳長伯
54. Dèng Yòubó 鄧佑伯
55. Lee Sam (b. 1834, 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:

• Shèng Dà'ān | Shin On 盛大安
• Huáng Sānbó 黃三伯
• Qiū Guó'ān 丘國安
• Wú Zhángbó 吳長伯
• Dèng Yòubó 鄧佑伯

Chin was able to, after consulting Shin's descendants, convince himself that Shèng Dà'ān 盛大安 was physically identical to Shèng Mínglì 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.

21 March 1855 saw the farewell ceremony of a 55-year-old governor and a change in power structure in the Straits Settlements. The 54-year-old W. J. Butterworth (b. 1801, d. 1856) left office in Singapore and he was replaced by a new administrator, the 51-year-old E. A. Blundell (b. 1804, d. 1868). Blundell was actually the Governor pro tempore when S. G. Bonham (b. 1803, d. 1863) left office in January 1843, but he was abruptly removed in June to make way for Butterworth. Blundell's sudden removal was likely linked to his strained relationship with the Earl of Ellenborough (b. 1790, d. 1871), the Governor General in India. When Blundell was reappointed in 1855, he apparently did not hold on to the non-intervention policies imposed by the EIC. In 1857, as a response to the grievances voiced by the tin merchants in Melaka, the HMS Amethyst (s. 1844 - 1869) was sent to Sungai Linggi. She was greenlighted by Singapore to remove the ‘illegal' tolls installed by the Malay chiefs to extract duties from vessels using the waterway. Shown above the HMS Amethyst (circa 1864) when she was loaned to the Atlantic Telegraph Company, where she was employed as cable vessel to transport submarine telegraph cable.

Captain Shin On was originally buried in Bukit Sebukor³, Melaka. His grave, however, was obscured for a long time until it was rediscovered in 1979. The date marked on the right hand side of the tombstone says: 同治8年己巳季冬月穀日, i.e. 8th year of the Reign of Emperor Tongzhi, an auspicious day in the 12th lunisolar month of the year of Jisi. The 12th lunisolar month of the Year of Jisi is bordered by 2 January 1870 and 30 January 1870. Thus, we know the grave was set in January 1870. See Chin (2003), p. 68.

The fact that Chin was not able to immediately associate Dà'ān 大安 with Mínglì 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).

The remains of Captain Shin On were exhumed and relocated to Semenyih in 1984. Excavation began on March 6 and his remains were placed into a ceremonial urn on March 14. Captain Shin was reburied in Semenyih Kwong Tong Cemetery on March 30. It is clear from a photograph taken in 1984, his head was evidently missing. See Chin (2003), p. 72. Chin was of the opinion that grave found in Bukit Sebukor was not the original tomb but a rebuilt version, given that the tombstone can be precisely dated to 1870 but the Captain was killed in 1860. According to Letessier (1893), while attempting to reach the residence of Dato Klana Putra Sendeng in Ampangan, Captain Shin On was intercepted and mercilessly decapitated by the men of Raja Radin⁴ (r. 1831 - 1861). The exact date of Shin On's birth/death is unknown. Many dates are thus proposed to fill the gap:

• 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.

Anglo-Malay power dynamics in the Malay states and Singapore, Baba capitalists in Melaka, and the death of a Fuichiu captain in 1860

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 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 Si Sen Ta 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 Si Sen Ta 四師爺 to Yap Ah Sze 葉四, another Huizhou martyr killed, in 1869, by a rival Chinese tribe in Kanching.

A brass bell that was dedicated to the Fourth Counsel 四師爺 (photographed by Bak Jia How 莫家浩 in 2023) located at the Bukit Rasah Temple 芙蓉亞沙千古廟, offered respectfully to Fourth Counsel, ordained and immortalized by the Jade Emperor, by Li Kaihe¹⁵, a humble disciple from Jiayingzhou, installed on an auspicious day of the 7th lunisolar month of the 11th year of the Reign of Tongzhi 同治11年7月11日 (i.e. betweeen 4 August 1872 and 2 September 1872). The bell was manufactured by a workshop in Foshan. 沐恩弟子嘉應州黎開合敬奉・玉封四師爺䑓前・同治十一年歲次壬申孟秋吉旦立・隆盛爐造. Thus the candidates named by Zhang (1959) and Lee (1997) are once again shown to be incorrect.

1. 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 because Yap Ah Shak and Yap Ah Loy are listed. 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 they 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 Si Sen Ta was introduced from Melaka in 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 list was 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.
   
   
2. 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 Mínglì 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 Shèng Mínglì 盛明利 and not Shèng Dà'ān 盛大安 in two inscriptions found in Melaka.
   
   
3. 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 Si Sen Ta, the date on Shin's tombstone was misread as 同治八年冬季吉日, and the mistake was propagated by Ong Seng Huat 王琛發 and Lí Àilín 黎艾琳 in their 2002 book: The people of Huizhou and Negeri Sembilan 惠州人與森美蘭.
   
   
4. 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.
   
   
5. 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.
   
   
6. 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 proposed by Zhang (1959) are utilized by the Temple in a rather creative way. 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.
   
   
7. 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)
   
   
8. 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.
   
   
9. 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).
   
   
10. 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・芙蓉炉骨捐题银芳名) bearing the name of Shèng Mínglì 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.
    
    
11. 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.
    
    
12. 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.
    
    
13. Only internal records kept by the Temple can help to answer the question of when the second deity was introduced to the Temple. One potential clue is the plaque carrying the words 仙師四師宫 (The Palace of the Heavenly Counsel and the Fourth Counsel). Apparently it officially detached the adjective ‘xian' 仙 in 仙四師爺 to form the Heavenly Counsel 仙師 and the Fourth Counsel 四師. The name of the Temple can also be found rendered as 仙四師爺宫 (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.
    
    
14. 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).
    
    
15. 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.
    
    
16. Shi Cangjin 石沧金 (2006) 叶亚来与仙四师爷庙关系考察 《东南亚纵横》第4期, p. 31.

Part 2. The first temple in Kuala Lumpur

Concerning the founding of the Temple, the most reliable source of information is the 1932 inscription 四公紀念碑, which can be found on the left side of the entrance 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 (i.e. between 27 December 1932 and 25 January 1933) and it was commissioned to commemorate the contributions of Yap Ah Loy, Yap Ah Shak, Yap Kwan Sheng, and Chan Sow Lin. 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 early years of the Reign of Emperor Guangxu, of the previous Qing Dynasty, and it has been nearly 60 years since then.

If the word 光緒初元 is to be intepreted as the first year of the Reign of Guangxu Emperor, then it follows that the Temple was established in 1875, and the gap between 1933 and 1875 is 57 years, which satisfies the term ‘將六十載矣' (nearly 60 years).

\(n\)	Nearly 60 years	Gregorian date	Chinese date
	59 years	27 December 1873	同治12年歲次癸酉11月8日
	58 years	27 December 1874	同治13年歲次甲戌11月19日
1	57 years	27 December 1875	光緒1年歲次乙亥11月30日
2	56 years	27 December 1876	光緒2年歲次丙子11月12日
3	55 years	27 December 1877	光緒3年歲次丁丑11月23日
4	54 years	27 December 1878	光緒4年歲次戊寅12月4日
5	53 years	27 December 1879	光緒5年歲次己卯11月15日
6	52 years	27 December 1880	光緒6年歲次庚辰11月26日
7	51 years	27 December 1881	光緒7年歲次辛巳11月7日

We were told by Zhang (1959) that between 1881 and 1883, the Temple underwent significant renovations. The renovation project was likely heavily sponsored by Yap Ah Loy. The most important evidence to support this claim are the existance of a set of commemorative plaques donated by Yap and the most important one is the banner (dated 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) bearing the following words in standard script (楷書):

佑我平安

When did Yap Ah Loy donated a piece of land of his to build the Temple?

Year	Author
1873
1875	Shi (2006)14
1881
1882	Zhang (1959)