[ { "id": 212162, "series_id": 26, "series_slug": "histsyn-rashkb-journal-engine", "series_title": "RASHKB Journal 皇家亞洲學會香港分會學刊", "series_use_hku_proxy": false, "document_key": "RAS-1990", "page_number": 104, "title": "RAS-1990", "content_text": "81\n\nAlso in Taiwan lone images occupy the altar of a number of small temples in the Hsinchu area. In each case the image is a portrait rather than a standard image, of elderly men, obviously ancestral images, revered and prayed to as local benefactors by local residents who rarely know their personal names or life stories. They are all from Hakka communities, and are referred to as Ta-jen A. They include Yang Ta-jen, Huang Ta-jen, Hsieh Ta-jen, Heng Ta-jen and Chao Ta-jen. Presumably each had some social position and status and their present day minor cults have been stimulated by the construction of a decorous and specific shrine or temple housing its charismatic image.\n\nThe following are examples of the legends and cults connected with four deceased locals whose charisma led to them being honoured and later revered as local deities. Two were local secret society gang leaders, the third a scholar who was a renowned healer and the fourth was a local philanthropist.\n\nYeh Te-lai, a Hakka immigrant to Kuala Lumpur where he is better known as Yap Ah-loy, was appointed Kapitan China by the Sultan of Selangor in 1868 with the right to tax tin and opium and to judge lawsuits between Malays and Chinese. During inter-racial troubles his private army of some 2500 Chinese fought many battles against his rivals. He was a go-getter who succeeded in establishing a firm business base for the community in Kuala Lumpur, a 'frontier town' where he maintained law and order by means of his secret society 'soldiers' under their generals, one of whom was Sheng Ming-li and another Ch'en Chung-lai. Ming-li and Chung-lai were both murdered in Negri Sembilan in about 1860, and on the orders of Yeh Te-lai, were deified and their images placed on the main altars in some four temples, in Rasah, Semenyih and Kuala Lumpur. Ming-li was referred to as Shih-yeh (Adviser) or Ssu Shih-yeh Kung-li (the Fourth Secretary [in an official yamen]). His image and that of Chung-li used to be borne around Kuala Lumpur during their annual festival on the 1st of the ninth lunar month. Legend has it that when Sheng Ming-li was decapitated his blood was white, not red, a miracle in the eyes of his followers, who buried him near Malacca.\n\nThe second case is Hsin Ting. Hsin Ting is the main deity in his temple in Taipei where he is portrayed as a scholar holding a scroll. Although his cult was carried to Taipei by a scholar who had passed his examinations after praying to the deity, Hsin Ting has reverted to his original skill of medicine and is now prayed to by the sick for", "txt_file_path": "txt/dfo323lmgvd/RAS-1990.txt", "external_url": "https://digitalrepository.lib.hku.hk/catalog/d79206299", "rank": 0 }, { "id": 215785, "series_id": 26, "series_slug": "histsyn-rashkb-journal-engine", "series_title": "RASHKB Journal 皇家亞洲學會香港分會學刊", "series_use_hku_proxy": false, "document_key": "RAS-2002", "page_number": 84, "title": "RAS-2002", "content_text": "in the Straits, for example in negotiation for the settlement of Penang Island in 1786 where the Supreme Government remained steadfast in refusing to promise military aid to the Sultan of Kedah. Thus, in a Siamese invasion in 1821, the Penang Government did not offer military aid to the Sultan, but only political asylum and mediation. Indeed the whole history of Anglo-Siamese relations in the Malay Peninsular shows evidence that the non-intervention policy was adhered to as much as possible, (cf. Mills, supra, Chap 8 (Anglo-Siamese relations)) For the obvious political and economic reasons the British did not want to antagonise the Siamese (cf. Tarling, Anglo-Dutch Rivalry in the Malay World, 1760-1824) by interfering in the affairs of the Malay States (such as Kedah, Kelantan and Trengganu) which were within the Siamese sphere of influence.\n\nSevere censures were passed upon Captain Low for his treaty with Perak in 1826; and the treaty between James Low and Perak and Selangor in 1826, received strong criticism from the Supreme Government and resulted in Low's being suspended from his duties. (Tan DE, Supra, p 119) The Indian Government only relented when Governor Fullerton managed to convince it of the necessity of protecting British interests, a clear instance of the Indian Government's unwillingness to intervene in any of the Malay States. This was further proven when appeals of Perak and Trengannu for defensive purposes were likewise rejected. In the Naning War of 1831-2, Governor Ibbetson was told that the extension of territory was not desired. (Ibid. p 119)\n\nAn even more striking instance occurred in 1833, when the boundary between the Malacca Territory and the tiny state of Johol was debated over. Between the two lay a debatable piece of land which had formerly been claimed by both states, containing rich mines of tin and gold. Governor Ibbetson regarded the frontier delimitation as an excellent opportunity for showing that accessions of territory and encroachments upon their rights is the furthest from our views and intentions' (Mills, supra, p 177), thus resigning any claims that the British might have to it, and even included it within the area of Johol.\n\nThrough the above examples, I would say that the British were pursuing a policy of non-intervention in the Malay States between 1824-73. They upheld this policy whenever possible, though in some cases intervention was unavoidable. And it is significant that sometimes even in instances where British merchants' interests were threatened (for example in Negri Sembilan), the policy of non-intervention was still observed.", "txt_file_path": "txt/dfo323lmgvd/RAS-2002.txt", "external_url": "https://digitalrepository.lib.hku.hk/catalog/mp4901278", "rank": 0 } ]