DESTRUCTION OF NATIONAL CULTURAL HERITAGE MONUMENT: ADDRESSING THE DISTRACTING NARRATIVES DIVERTING ATTENTION FROM THE DESTRUCTION OF 19TH CENTURY MONUMENT SET UP BY CAPITAN CHUNG KENG QUEE (郑景贵) TO MEMORIALISE HIS PRINCIPAL WIFE OR TSAI (妻), FOO TENG NYONG (胡丁娘).
On Sunday 28th August this year, what might have been one of the most heinous and despicable crimes was perpetrated when the owner of a piece of land took the laws of Malaysia into his own hands and paid for and ordered the destruction of an intricately carved and sculpted piece of 19th century fine art wrought in one of the hardest stones known to man. Granite. Something that probably took a year to put together -- the monument, serving as the tomb of Foo Teng Nyong (born 1849) who died in 1883, was completed in 1884 -- was reduced to rubble in less than a day.
There is a saying that without history there is no learning and without learning there is no growth. Those who bear great love for history and culture, and all they might teach us so we might build a better world, have expressed outrage at the despicable act that has deprived Penang, Malaysia and the world, of what may be the most exquisite example of 19th century Chinese design, artistry and craftsmanship, evidenced by examination of the fine quality of the stonework that made up the monument as seen in old photographs, as well as the rubble that is all that remains of that irreplaceable edifice.
Many are crying out for justice but all that has been done so far has been announcements of probes and investigations, an assertion that no planning permission had been applied for nor given, the issuance of a show cause letter for non-compliance of a permit for exhumation issued by the lowest level of government (municipal), and a claim that the offender -- nothing here is mentioned about the destruction of the monument, only the non-compliance of the municipal exhumation permit -- would be brought to Court.
All of these have fueled even more outrage by activists and others concerned as to the silence of the authorities, and their seeming reluctance to take harsh and deterrent action against the offender -- including but not limited to:
- an order to fully restore the monument to its original condition, position and location,
- retrieval of the remains of Foo Teng Nyong parts of which are said to have been interred in an unmarked pauper's grave at Batu Gantong, and other parts, together with what remained of the coffin, at a Jelutong landfill;
- development bans for the longest period of time possible.
Together with this is a call for complete reformation of the system presently in place to ensure the identification, protection and preservation of objects of cultural heritage including national and state laws, and all relevant and related processes and procedures, including a thorough examination of all connected departments, divisions or other government bodies, at all levels, to improve their effectiveness in this regard, particularly with respect to when and how different government organisations communicate with each other, in order to bring each other together on the same page, in a timely manner. Meaning before objects of cultural heritage are destroyed.
This is essential so that the very real and pressing needs of progress and development may be addressed expediently, but without sacrificing precious national treasures that once are lost, no matter how good a facsimile is produced, can never be brought back, to the detriment of the state, the country and the world at large. The failure by all relevant authorities to protect the monument Capitan Chung Keng Quee left for us when he set it up in 1884 is a testament to this.
However, not everyone feel this way as can be seen from the very many negative comments or narratives that appear in social media circles, disparaging efforts to press the government into taking deterrent action against the offender. All of these comments and narratives, some of them stretching incredulity, serve to distract audiences from the issue of the destruction of a priceless Malaysian artefact from two centuries past, and a call to make an example out of the offender so as to deter others from contemplating similar offences in future.
STATE OF PENANG COMPARED TO CULTURAL HERITAGE OBJECT
One comment, as hard as it is to believe, compared the territory of Penang to the monument, with the commentator insisting that Kedah should therefore have the right to lay claim on Penang. It made no difference to that commentator when it was pointed out to them that no claim was being made on the land on which the monument once stood, or that Penang, once a Crown Colony, was an administrative division and a territory, brought together into the Malayan Union under specific laws and not an object of cultural heritage, governed by entirely different laws.
HE WHO COMPLAINS ABOUT DESTRUCTION OF OBJECT SHOULDN'T HAVE ALLOWED IT TO FALL INTO DILAPIDATION OR DISREPAIR
The monument was not dilapidated or in any state of ruin. It was in pristine condition having survived the Japanese Occupation and the ravages of 138 years, unmolested by man or beast, until its destruction by the landowner on Sunday 28th of August 2022. The undergrowth, bushes and shrubs that grew around and over the monument, did so under the disregard of the monument which did not suffer from the shade they provided. Having said that, it is very possible that there would have been volunteers who would have come and cleared the shrubbery had the landowner not prevented them from doing so by padlocking the entrance to the monument, or by having a large signage on the padlocked gate providing his telephone number so that those who wanted to could call him to unpadlock the gate and allow them entry to clear the place.
FOO TENG YONG WAS A NOBODY, MERELY SOME 3RD WIFE OR SOMEONE'S MOTHER WHO CONTRIBUTED NOTHING TO PENANG
Capitan Chung Keng Quee married Lim Ah Chen before he left China for Penang, so as to reassure himself there would be someone taking care of his aged mother in his absence. He was 14 years of age at that time. Lim Ah Chen did not have anything to do with his work or business dealings in Penang, or elsewhere outside of China. That was his first marriage.
He next, while still married to Lim Ah Chen, married Lee See Moey, but when he discovered she was cheating on him, he divorced her.
Next, having divorced Lee See Moey, and still only in any form of legal union with no other person than Lim Ah Chen in China, he married the sister of Penang-born Foo Yu Chi (胡玉池), the father of the man who would later, thanks to the intercession of Foo Teng Nyong, come to work for her husband, Capitan Chung Keng Quee, and rise to become known as the Tin King of Malaya, Foo Choo Choon (胡子春).
Foo Teng Nyong had the traditional Chinese marriage of a Tsai (妻) or Principal Wife, that would have involved paying respects to the Divine or Heaven, to Parents and Ancestors, and to each other and would have included the tea ceremony that many of us are accustomed with. With their union the Capitan had two Consorts, one inside and one outside Imperial China. No other wives or concubines existed at that time. Press reporting of the Courtroom proceedings of various cases related to the Last Testament and Will of Chung Keng Quee confirm her position as Tsai (that word was used to describe her status). These same reports also mentioned that when other women were subsequently brought into the family by the Capitan China, there was no traditional marriage ceremony of the form just mentioned. Instead the ceremony involved the new member of the family approaching and serving tea to Foo Teng Nyong as a means to gain the acceptance and recognition by the Tsai or Principal Wife.
Apart from any human resource management activities, such as the one mentioned above concerning her nephew, Foo Choo Choon, historian Clement Liang of the Penang Heritage Trust notes that "historical records revealed Teng Nyong to be Keng Kwee’s most beloved wife and evidently exerted much influence on the Kapitan’s climb to success." A success that earned him appellations like the "Country's Frist True Capitalist" and the "Biggest Patron of the Century" (Kunio Yoshihara 1987: 413-414; MAK Lau-Fong 1987:258-259), among many others more current, and those given to him in his own lifetime. A success without which he would not have been able to have made the impact he did on the economy and development of Penang and the Straits Settlements, Perak, Pahang and the Malay States, and even Maliwun (Mergui) in what was then British Burmah. A success without which he would not have been able to directly benefit communities when the set up or donated to various institutions including hospitals and schools. A success without which he would not have been able to have the shophouses and the means to tear them all down so he could present the Municipal Commissioners of George Town with the roads they so desperately wanted as connectors to other roads to ease communication and traffic, but did not have the land with which to do so, all suitable land already having private residences or commercial property built on them. A success without the influence of his Principal Wife or Tsai, Foo Teng Nyong, he might not have had.
CHUNG KENG QUEE WAS A GANGSTER / PIRATE / CRIMINAL / ETC. WHO ENGAGED IN PHILANTHROPHY TO REDEEM HIS SINS
It is easy to make sweeping statements without offering a shred of evidence to serve as proof or to support assertions. Any wrong doing would have happened at a time when these would have been recorded in reports of court proceedings or in official records such as the sworn testimonies taken by Commissioners during the inquiries into the Penang Riots of 1867 or the murder of HBM's 1st Resident to Perak, James Wheeler Woodford Birch (the latter known to scholars as the Perak Enquiry Papers, or P.E.P.). No one has been able to offer into evidence anything other than hearsay, gossip and rumour.
On the other hand, an overwhelming volume of publicly-available records exist to show the very opposite. Records exist to show his close interactions with former Resident Councillor Henry Trotter who was a guest at his housewarming when 29 Church Street was completed and former New South Wales Legislative Assemblyman Henry Copeland who was his guest at Taiping. Records exist to show Sir Hugh Low, HBM's 3rd Resident to Perak, rushing to vindicate Chung Keng Quee when a disparaging article was published in Harper's magazine. Records exist to show how close Chung Keng Quee was to Sir Frank A. Swettenham, the former rushing to Kuala Lumpur every time the latter needed to consult with him, and where once the former High Commissioner, as he then was, used the name and deeds of Chung Keng Quee to browbeat Thamboosamy Pillai and his fellow miners who had descended on Swettenham to push for more concessions and more lenient terms on their leases. Records exist to show how intimate he was to many men whose reputations were beyond doubt and who, it is doubtful, would be seen so casual and close to a "sinner."
CHUNG KENG QUEE CUT OFF THE HEADS OF HIS ENEMIES AND THREW THEIR HEADS AND BODIES INTO THE WELL OF HIS HOME
Any schoolkid, assuming they were taught the same kind of history I was, must surely know that any decapitations would have happened during the period of the Larut War 1861-1873, whereas the land for 29 Church Street (completed 1895) and the adjoining ancestral hall / temple (completed 1898-9) was purchased between 1882-1883. The old buildings on the land so bought were leveled so that the present two buildings might be raised. One of the buildings demolished was the former headquarters of the Ghee Hin. In course of demolition and clearing, it was discovered there was a well filled with skulls. These were the skulls of Capitan Chung Keng Quee's Hai San men, decapitated by the Ghee Hin men during the later part of the Larut War. Or surely the Haters are not suggesting that, during the course of the Larut War, the Capitan China cut off the heads of his own men, snuck into the enemy camp and then dumped the decapitated heads of his own men into his enemy's well? That would be ridiculous beyond tears.
WHY BOTHER TO MAKE NOISE NOW THAT THE MONUMENT IS DESTROYED WHEN SURELY THIS MUST HAVE BEEN KNOWN FOR MONTHS ALREADY
A commentary has already been written putting together the sequence of events from Mid February onwards to show how government was engaged with, the actions government was taking and so on, which shows that quite a bit had transpired prior to the destruction of the monument which government admits was a shock to them, especially when government had put it to the landowner to retain the monument in situ (where it was), as the green reserve of the development, something all developments, UNDER LAW, must maintain. Everyone felt reassured because surely the landowner would not go so far as to thumb their nose at government or decide to take the law into their own hands. In this the authorities were wrong and had under estimated the landowner, as the destruction of the monument on Sunday 28th August 2022 shows. That commentary can be found here:
https://jefferyseow.blogspot.com/2022/09/sequence-of-events-leading-to.html
And if our authorities are not gelded or emasculated, as the landowner's actions make them out to be, they must take the harshest action and make of this landowner's penalty an example so severe it will cause other errant parties with thoughts of similar deeds, to fear and tremble at the thought of the fate that awaits them should they decide to walk the same path.
DESCENDANTS SOLD THE LAND, PROFITED FROM IT AND NOW CRY FOUL OVER THIS -- IT IS ALL ABOUT THE MONEY, CASH IS KING
A commentary too has already been written to address this, and shows that descendants would not have sold the land at the material time -- in or before 1953 when the launch of the development of the housing estate known as Fettes Park, was announced in the Straits Budget (Singapore). That commentary, based on publicly available content from contemporaneous newspapers can be found here:
https://jefferyseow.blogspot.com/2022/09/here-is-why-descendants-could-not-have.html
Further, it must be emphatically noted that:
A.) No descendant is questioning the current owner's right to title and land. In fact no one is raising the issue of this except the same ones who are accusing the descendants. No one else is.
B.) No descendant is making any claim for any sort of compensation, whether for land, destruction of monument or exhumation of the remains of the occupant of said monument. Again, no one else is, except those pointing their fingers at descendants.
This may be entirely circumstantial and a huge coincidence of course, but from their frequency and vehement defence of landowner and developer, the casual audience would be forgiven for thinking those commentators to be somehow connected to the landowner or developer.
To anyone who pays sufficient attention, this is not a civil case between descendants and the landowner. It is now a case between government and the landowner. Do not allow anything to distract you from that fact.
EMPOWERING GOVERNMENT TO ACT
Many who love history and are proud of Penang's rich mixed-bag cosmopolitan culture are puzzled at government's seeming reluctance to charge, prosecute, convict and penalise the party that has, by their destruction of a priceless work of art and craft in the form of an intricately carved and sculpted 19th century monument, festooned with fruits, flowers and beasts out of mythology and classics, like Journey to the West, deprived Penang, Malaysia and the world of an invaluable study into the creativity and skill of 19th century Chinese stone craftsmen, and a record of an important 19th century woman in a land where so little has been recorded about 19th century women.
It is to be hoped that the collective voices of the general public from Penang, the rest of Malaysia, and indeed the rest of the world, may provide the government with the confidence and energy to act accordingly. To that end the reader is requested to copy this:
1. Government to require developer restore the tomb as government required of another developer when the Hotel Metropole (Northam Road) was destroyed.
2. Government to require developer to retrieve the remains of Foo Teng Nyong they caused to be removed and interred in Batu Gantong, to be reinterred in the restored tomb.
3. Government to gazette tomb and land of Foo Teng Nyong tomb a heritage site.
4. Government to immediately take action to put up signages at the site of the tomb of Chung Thye Phin, and to fence up and padlock the site.
5. Government to gazette the land and tomb of Capitan Chung Thye Phin a heritage site.
6. Government to immediately order the prohibition of any exhumation at the site of the tomb of Capitan Chung Thye Phin.
and to paste it into an email to these personages:
Governor of Penang: Ahmad Fuzi bin Hj Abdul Razak
care of his Confidential Secretary
mrahman@penang.gov.my
Deputy Governor
mbak@pdc.gov.my
Chief Minister of Penang: Chow Kon Yeow
chowkonyeow@penang.gov.my
State Assemblyman [ADUN] for Tanjong Bunga: Zairil Khir Johari
zairil@penang.gov.my
State Assemblyman [ADUN] for Kebun Bunga: Ong Khan Lee
ongkhanlee@penang.gov.my
Exec. Councillor for Tourism, Arts and Creative Economy: Yeoh Soon Hin
yeohsoonhin@penang.gov.my
Mayor of the City of Penang Island (Datuk Bandar Pulau Pinang)
datukbandar@mbpp.gov.my
Each email from one of you that arrives in the inboxes of each of these public servants tells them what history and cultural heritage mean to you, and how important it is to you to see the things listed acted on by government.
Thank you.
References:
- MAK, L. F., 1987. Chinese subcommunal elites in 19th-Century Penang. Japanese Journal of Southeast Asian Studies, 25(2), pp.254-264.
- Yoshihara, K., 1987. The Problem of Continuity in Chinese Businesses in Southeast Asia. Japanese Journal of Southeast Asian Studies, 25(3), pp.412-429.
THE 19TH CENTURY ART AND CRAFT LOST
