Article

Six wooden images in the Cheng Hong Teng, Malacca

From Munshipedia, the MBRAS digital historical encyclopedia

Six wooden images in the Cheng Hong Teng, Malacca

C.A. Gibson-Hill published this article in 1955, examining six carved wooden corbel-blocks in the Cheng Hoon Teng, Malacca’s oldest Chinese temple, and arguing that they are south Indian works of the late eighteenth century, produced by craftsmen connected to the British Madras garrison that occupied Malacca from 1795. The article situates these unique figures within the temple’s architectural history and traces their later replication in Singapore.

Summary

The Cheng Hoon Teng presents a layered founding narrative: tradition credits two successive Capitan China, Tay Kie Ki (d. 1677) and Li Wei King (d. 1685), while stone tablets record restorations in 1625, 1648, and 1681, suggesting an original establishment around 1600. Gibson-Hill argues the temple could not have occupied its present site before the Dutch capture of Malacca in 1641, when the area was part of Kampong Bendahara and the urban Chinese were congregated nearer the river. The main hall was built in 1704 by Chan Ki Lock and substantially rebuilt and enlarged in 1801 by Capitan China Chua Su Cheong, a form the building has retained since.

The central problem the article addresses is the origin of six carved corbel-blocks that support the lantern beams of the three halls. Unlike the lion-heads or mythical winged figures typical of Malayan Chinese temples, these blocks depict recognisable human figures in three distinct groups: two European gentlemen in East India Company dress, two European military figures seated on mastiff-like dogs, and two Chinese figures associated with tin ingots. Gibson-Hill takes photographs to London, where Dr John Irwin at the India Museum identifies all six as south Indian work of the latter part of the eighteenth century, noting a strong resemblance to the famous wooden effigy of an EIC official being devoured by a tiger, made for Tippoo Sahib and recovered from Seringapatam in 1799.

The article then reconstructs the circumstances of their production. Early Chinese immigrants to Malaya were overwhelmingly unskilled labourers, and local Chinese craftsmen lacked the ability to produce original carved figures of this quality. The British occupation of Malacca by Madras forces in 1795 provides the most plausible mechanism for the arrival of skilled south Indian woodcarvers, who would have been available when the temple was rebuilt in 1801. Gibson-Hill further demonstrates that four inferior copies of the central pair were later made for the Chwee Eng Shui I in Singapore, built in 1858 by Tan Kim Seng, a Malacca-born Chinese who served as chairman of the Cheng Hoon Teng management committee from about 1855 until his death in 1864.

Key Findings

  • The temple’s stone tablets record restorations in 1625, 1648, and 1681, placing its original establishment at or before c. 1600; the main hall was rebuilt in 1801 by Chua Su Cheong (pp. 173–174).
  • All six corbel-blocks were identified by Dr John Irwin at the India Museum as south Indian work of the late eighteenth century, with a particular resemblance to the Tippoo Sahib tiger-effigy recovered from Seringapatam in 1799 (p. 176).
  • The Thian Hok Keng in Singapore, rebuilt 1839–1842 with all materials shipped from China, cost Sp. $23,800 by late 1841, with an estimated total of Sp. $30,000—expenses that Capitan China Sit Mun Chew could not have met for Malacca (p. 176).
  • British Madras forces occupied Malacca in 1795, providing the most likely channel through which south Indian craftsmen reached the temple for the 1801 rebuilding (p. 177).
  • Four derivative copies of the central pair appear in the Chwee Eng Shui I, Singapore, built and endowed by Tan Kim Seng in 1858; the workmanship is inferior, with disproportions attributable to incompetence rather than the deliberate caricature of the originals (pp. 178–179).
  • Col. Cavenagh’s 1863 account confirms the figures were already in situ and interpreted as representing “the different nationalities by which the temple is supposed to be sustained” (p. 178).

Conclusion

Gibson-Hill’s definitive takeaway is that the six figures represent a rare instance of cross-cultural artistic production in colonial Malaya, where the absence of skilled Chinese craftsmen and the logistical impossibility of importing carved woodwork from China created a vacuum filled by south Indian carvers attached to the British military presence. The figures thus embody a hybrid material culture—Chinese in function and setting, Indian in origin and style, and European in subject matter—that has no parallel in the temple architecture of the region.

Context

  • The article draws on the India Museum collection (London) for stylistic identification, contemporary written accounts (Cavenagh 1863; James Low 1841), and temple stone tablets and manuscript notes supplied by Ngin Wee Chiow of the Cheng Hoon Teng Religious Section.
  • Gibson-Hill, primarily known as a naturalist and ornithologist, contributed a series of articles on Malay material culture to JMBRAS; this piece contributes to the historiography of Chinese temple architecture in the Straits Settlements by demonstrating the role of non-Chinese artisans in shaping the built environment of the Chinese community.

References