History 2
Gatesways and Kongsis
Penang's 19th century enclaves
(Part 2)
by Chen Kuo-wei
|
History 2
Gatesways and Kongsis
|
|
Part 2
Here and there THE GATEWAY AND THE WALL both delineate boundary, but the gateway's dual function invites a crossing of its boundary. Its charm is that it often seems to transmit to a tourist some curious venture of ‘here and there'. And in such ‘neutral' space differentiable to be ‘here and there' at a gateway, the imaginary ‘host' of this ‘invitation by curiosity,' is no match of a ‘subjectivity', and hence territoriality, that can enhance an experience of ‘boundary crossing'. Thus, in a space differentiable to be ‘ours and yours' at the gateway, subjectivity of ownership and control supports the explicit posture of invitation at the point where there is territoriality. The physical presence of the kongsi enclaves in Penang, including those of the Khoos, Cheahs and Tans, and others, were magnificent building complexes hidden behind the shop fronts in the streets inside the ‘south precinct', and located within larger-sized town blocks which apparently deviated from the planned modules of the ‘original grid'. Modern visitors on a guided tour constantly meet with refreshing surprises. One is the unexpected location of the gateways leading to the ‘heartland' of the kongsi territory. This is clearly the case where some ‘town design' principles were at work, namely recession, intricacy, anticipation, as well as ‘here and there'. Territoriality Besides being the actual point of entry, the gateway strengthens, in a general way, territorial identity. It is meant to be crossed more than it wants to close off, but when it marks ‘private' property, it is closed to the ‘public.' Its grand appearance hides a dissonance between its own seemingly inviting posture, and the potent capability of the ‘right' of entry refusal. A closed gateway connotes private occupation and ownership; it plainly means property and privacy protection. On such occasions it is no more than a wall. In view of the practices of the entrusted property and/or collective ownership of the kongsis, and the waqf management of the Islamic society, there is no dichotomy of public versus private per se in territorial terms, hence no further subterritories to be differentiated and marked within the kongsi and the mosque compounds, except perhaps doors to each household in the case of both communities. But even on each household's premises there is work and trade to be done. We will hold that the basic unit of private space in a modernist sense was prefigured in this pre-‘modern' nineteenth-century life of Penang. |
| The kongsi
temple In the heartland of the kongsi territory, accessible via the gateway, there is a large lawn or paved area capable of accommodating hundreds of clansmen during communal occasions. The space is well defined and culminates at the kongsi temple, in some cases complemented with a theatre facing the temple. The architectural composition of the temple, temple forecourt, and theatre is clearly ceremonial, with theatrical performances dedicated to entertaining the gods. This species of the paired axial composition can be seen in the clansmen's ancestral homeland in China as well as other overseas settlements like the ones in Taiwan. But there is a difference in that the kongsi temple does not only enshrine ancestor tablets, but mainly territorial gods. In the case with China and Taiwan, the worship of territorial gods and patriarchal ancestors are often of separate systems and enshrined in separate accommodations, albeit with respect to each ‘enclave' of clan versus temple, the territories are generally overlapping. In the case with Penang, particularly with the Khoo Kongsi Temple, two out of its three shrine chambers are dedicated to the territorial deities. One is the localized version of Tua Sai Yah, one of the patron saints of Chiang Chew prefecture in southern Fujian province tr ansformed from the general category of earth gods in China - Hock Teik Cheng Sin, the local territorial god. Tai Sai Yah is here enshrined in the central hall in the temple. It can be argued that the deified clan ancestor was territorial, but when clan lineage was retraced far back in time (becoming a pure clan surname), it was likely to be less territorial. We may label this type of territoriality ‘historical' (of the clan surname), while Tua Pek Kong (alias Hock Teik Cheng Sin) may be ‘geographical' (of the indigene). Tua Sai Yah, following this proposition, may be categorized as historical-geographical in territoriality terms, this ‘both-and' characterizes its central position in the Khoo Temple. This could be what makes kongsi territory all-illuminating, it encompasses both historical and geographical dimensions of territoriality. The ‘kongsi temple', while symbolizing complicated implications of territoriality, is a proper term relative to ‘clan temple'. Strategic gateways Leading to the temple forecourt of the Khoo complex are ‘strategic' gateways, vested with the highest territorial vigour. They are impressive enough to transcend universal ‘neutrality'. Even in the midst of a peaceful milieu they can nevertheless be granted a ‘strategic' status. There are now in total three such gateways surviving from the historic kongsi wars, but the formal entry was only the one accessible from Beach Street (now Lebuh Pantai). The wider coachway entrance on Cannon Street can be more conveniently approached. The 1893 survey map shows that before the 1930's rebuilding of the terrace houses on the western side of Cannon Street, there were two more through-the-building type of passageway, one originally located on Armenian Street and at the end of Pitt Street, and the other on Acheen Street. Between these two passageways was Cannon Street, then an interior street and ‘private' for the Khoos. Amongst all these five, the two north-facing gates on Armenian Street, plus the entrances to another Tua Pek Kong Temple (now Poh Hock Seah) and to Cheah Kongsi, all on Armenian street must have been important strategic passes during the fierce confrontation in the 1867 Riots. |
Self-centredness The five major surname clans are all located outside but in proximity to Light's ‘original grid'. This was not incidental. Besides the Yeohs on Chulia Street and off to the east of Beach Street, the rest are in the ‘south precinct'. As we have previously discussed, there are many ways in which the two neighbouring major precincts are different, not only in their historical background but also in their physical, geographical and urban-formational features. In the northmost ‘super block' north of Armenian Street of this precinct, with Pitt Lane, Soo Hong Lane, and a through street latterly made called Ah Quee, as its interior streets, there are the two kongsi enclaves of the Lims and the Cheahs. Today, the front gateway of the Lim Kongsi is directly facing the southern end of King Street and its extension: Pitt Lane - Pitt Lane being the narrower, south-most section. This ‘strategic' topography of the Lims' gateway is of close resemblance to one of the original gateways of the Khoos facing Pitt Street. In the second ‘super block' located in the middle and flanked to the north and south by Armenian Street and Acheen Street , with Cannon Street and Cannon Square as its interior streets, there is the Khoo Kongsi. Finally towards the south of Acheen Street and to the Prangin River, there is the Acheh Mosque, off Acheen Street, and situated in a compound, and the Tan Kongsi in its own court, further south and off to the west of Beach Street. This formed the third ‘super block'. Each of the three super blocks in the ‘south precinct' typically has its own major spatial features, responsive to the specific needs for its sociality of the dwelling clansman or ethnic group. The urban feature of each place has resulted from its own unique process; in most cases the process had been gradual, phasic and autonomously conducted. Within this vast periphery and amid the structural composition of the various urban-spatial fractions, Acheen Street (now Lebuh Acheh) stood out in the centre, with the Acheh Mosque minaret, the highest structure in the precinct, as the landmark. There was convergence of various street activities of different people during different times of the day, this street serving as the territorial organizer, pivotal to the entire precinct. It is not difficult to notice that among the few crossroads developed off the coastline artery of Beach Street in earlier history, Acheen Street was the only street in this enclave connecting through to the west flanking artery of Carnarvon Street. Relatively narrow as it was, Acheen Street was nonetheless the most important street in the area. We shall now look into its urban-spatial importance. Resistance by situation In this urban formation, Acheen Street was where the axial movement was. Daily commercial activities such as trading, docking and transporting were at the east end, and people and goods were circulated through the Beach Street ghauts, jetties and the boat quays. Activities such as religious and social gatherings were at the other end, centred around the mosque and the vicinity of several bungalows where the Malay community leaders resided. And as has been mentioned previously, in the four kongsi complexes located within the precinct, of the Tan's, Khoo's, Cheah's, and Lim's alike, there were similarly introverted temple centre grounds, some including living and working functions, situated deep inside the ‘super block' opposite to their sea facing entrances. They all had their major access on Beach Street. This direction of access as well as the orientation of the urban composition is clearly in accord with the Acheh complex. The overall urban movements of the precinct were therefore in the east-westerly axial orientation toward the sea. The existence of subsistence activities in the precinct, which were independent of the economic activities of the central district of George Town as a whole, had long been established since the time of Tengku Syed Hussain in the early nineteenth century. There were perhaps people who were occasionally employed as labourers on a daily basis by the ‘other town', or some vendors and hawkers, who would be commuting across - especially during the period when the main camps of competing kongsis strived for the bidding and control of the farming districts and the lucrative revenue-farming business, and both parties were foes. It is inferable that the ‘strategic' gateways connecting through to the ‘other town' would most of the time have been shut to their opponents. |
| Synthetic
proposition It is argued here that there was interdependence between the revenue-farming operation and territoriality. The colonial government granted terms of one to three years, one year being common. What is critical for this question is whether mobilization had to be before, or after, the bidding. It was such a booming and lucrative business that a complicated network for the flow of profit must have been required for the operation. There must have been a need for some stability for a market that could not simply shift ‘overnight'. There must have been high tension in the atmosphere when the whole farming network had to be reorganized ‘overnight'. This ‘territoriality' was obviously of a kind of market (farming network) with substantial interests to protect. It was territorial, but more ‘time' related, or, of the temporalized kind of territoriality; and secret societies being traditionally functioning within geographical territory, was spatialized. The farmed out items, including the universally notorious opium, were almost entirely of consumption goods and activities. The revenue-farming activity was not only urban, directly involved in an urban consuming population, but involved a population which was put in a situation which could be described as provokingly solidified and defensive. Sustainability in ritual As we have described in the beginning on the formation of urban spaces of this land of kongsis and mosque, with the late coming Chinese implanted onto this kampung territory, Chinese enclaves were formed surrounding the original mosque. In between these enclaves were interflows and circulations on local scale and contained within the ‘territory'. While kongsi heartlands were jealously guarded by their gateways, the central Acheh Mosque was nonetheless open, not in dissonance with the formatively flowing Acheen Street, which was taken to the doorstep of the mosque building front. Communal and religious procession is an inseparable part of any folk life and they were carried on seasonally in Penang by the local folk. The ‘Boria' pageantry procession was a mixed religious, populist, and artistic performance transformed from the annual Muharram festivity, performed and participated in by the mainly Jawi Pekan town folk. It was a form of street activity from the beginning. Wandering ‘boria' bands sometimes caused brawls among rival troupes with suspected secret society involvement. The ‘Boria' procession was a typical territorially explicit expression. It is mentioned here to illustrate the functional inter-replaceability of two forms, behavioural versus physical (territorial declaration). With the former (territorial behaviour) being intensely maintained, the latter (physical form) can be relaxed, or vice versa, as was with the case of the mosque at Acheen Street. Not only were there preexisting differences with the traditional practice of defending the homeland by literally enclosing it or otherwise, but contemporary needs and on-site circumstances had to be considered. In addition, there was ideology attributed to the process of physical construct. Take, for example, this openness, even looseness, of the Acheh Mosque compound. There was conception of a cosmically far-reaching relation with a world beyond their immediate locality. Conceptive world view or cosmic brotherhood had been preached in the Islamic ideology. Contrary to the clannish territoriality of the Chinese, this lent to the mosque relatively more spatial fluency and openness. It existed within such supposed psycho-physically ‘safer' hub in contemporary Penang, with ‘safety' guaranteed by the colonial master at the time. While the difference in the ‘strategic' measures expressed in form are noticeable, subtlety and sensitivity will be needed in in-depth observation and interpretation. # (concluded) |
| from "Penang
Enclaves - Meaning in architectural and urban space of the Penang kongsi
enclave," a paper read by Chen Kuo-wei, Institute of Building
and Planning National Taiwan University, Taipei, at the Penang Story
Conference. ( Bibliographical references have been omited. The full article
may be read at www.penangstory.net) |
|
|
|
Women's
Centre for Change 34D Jones Road Penang
Counselling for women and children Telephone 228 0342 Website: www.wccpenang.org |
| ______ INDEX Point to the article that you want to read, and CLICK Index page Book Review Baba Sayings Cheng Ean's Fist Kongsi Gates Laotian Visit Penang's Development |
| _____________________ The Penang File Issue 25 |