110

CHAPTER FIVE: DEVELOPING NETWORKS IN THE “URBAN UNDERWORLD”

In the previous chapter, we saw the futile attempts at controlling the secret

societies by the various groups in Singapore. The British, in their attempts to criminalise

secret societies, had driven them underground in order to deprive them the recognition as

part and parcel of mainstream society. In reality, there is a thin line between what is

“mainstream” and “underworld” due to the continuous cooperation between people from

both societies with each other and it was through this network of relationships that

sustained the secret societies. Community leaders would want to tap into the labour

market that secret societies had great influence. Politicians, in the early stage of political

development and in the absence of strong grassroots movements, would seek their aid

during election as canvassers for votes and election helpers. The police would welcome

some form of income supplement or “coffee-money” which secret societies would not

mind giving and hawkers, shopkeepers and heads of street theatre groups would require

some form of “protection” in order to eke out a living in the midst of intense competition.

In return, secret societies would appreciate the help rendered by politicians and

community leaders whenever they had trouble with the law and the regular income from

their protection rackets. This contributed to the resilience of secret societies.

Whether it was cooperation or compliance, members from both the mainstream

and underworld societies were constantly seeking to develop networks. Although money

was inevitably involved in these relationships, services and favours were also exchanged.

In some cases, neither money nor services was involved but the exertion of influence.

111

In the absence of a dominant or common ideology to bind the people living in a

heterogeneous society such as Singapore, where it was divided along linguistic, ethnic,

political affiliation and educational lines, these networks served as types of social

interaction between the people. This social interaction was a form of sustenance to the

continuous presence of secret societies in Singapore. The networks both served as a

formula for bringing together individuals who were not kinsmen and as “building-blocks

for elaborate chains of vertical integration”1 In some cases, the links are not vertical in

fashion but linked through intermediaries. This linkage showed the need for secret

societies from the various communities in Singapore. Undoubtedly, this relationship was

also subject to changes brought on by social changes such as technological advancement,

encroachment and impact of new ideas and the need for adaptation. This was especially

so during the post-war period where great changes were taking place at an alarming rate.

Seeing the cooperation and compliance between members of secret societies and the larger

society was thus applicable in explaining the political and sociological action pertaining to

the secret society scene in Singapore. Such connections, despite under intense pressure

brought on by technological advancement and the gradual sophistication of public

services, persist even till today. Only by understanding the sociological action behind

these various social players then can we understand the present world we are living and

the historical value behind. In addition, the network mode of analysis will help readers to

see members of secret societies as entrepreneurs who tried to manipulate norms and

relationships for their own social and psychological benefit. With particular reference to

1 James C. Scott (1972), ‘The Erosion of Patron-Client Bonds and Social Change in Rural Southeast Asia,’ Journal of Asian Studies, Vol. 32, No. 1, November, p. 8. Although Chinese society in Singapore was based on kinship ties, Chinese did interact with non-kinship members through business ties and others.

112

the 1957 by-election2, this chapter, attempts to explain the continuing presence of secret

societies in Singapore society and the challenges they faced due to social evolution.

Definition of Networks

A network or social connection was an instrumental, informal and sometimes

inequitable relationship of reciprocity which usually involved a two-group tie. In many

ways, this network was similar to the patron-client relation which authors such as James

C. Scott and others described.3 The major differences lay in the type of society and

religion. Patron-client relations occurred mainly in agricultural societies but Singapore

was immigrational, occupational and urban; hence, there was fluidity and mobility of the

people. In addition, there was a dominant religion, be it Roman Catholicism or Islam, in

areas with strong patron-client relations. In Roman Catholicism, patron-client relations

were strong due to the concept of godparents as patrons, while Islam was the unifying

force that bound the different classes and ethnic groups together. In Singapore, the

predominant religions of the Chinese population were Taoism and Buddhism and the

concept of godparents as patrons was absent. Moreover, the patron-client mode of

analysis is a vertical analysis which was rigidly hierarchical. In addition, as compared to

the Marxist and functionalist analysis,4 the network analysis showed the interconnections

between social groups demarcated by class, ethnicity, language and religion as well as the

hierarchy within each network.

2 Please refer to the third chapter of this thesis. 3 Please see for more details James C. Scott (1972), ‘Patron-Client Politics and Political Change in Southeast Asia,’ The American Political Science Review, Vol. 66, No. 1, March, p. 92; Donald Liddick (1996), An Empirical, Theoretical and Historical Overview of Organized Crime, Lewiston: The Edwin Mellen Press, p. 200; Eric R. Wolf and Sydel Silverman (2001), Pathways of Power: Building an Anthropology of the Modern World, Berkeley: University of California Press, p. 179-180. 4 Please refer to Scott (1972), ‘Patron-Client Politics and Political Change in Southeast Asia,’ p. 91 for more details on the Marxist and functionalist mode of analyses of social relations.

113

In this two-group tie, one would perform the role of an advocate and the other

would be the executive. The advocate would seek assistance from the executive and was

usually a person of a higher socioeconomic class than the executive. He was the protector

as well as the provider. The executive reciprocated by offering services and general

support to the advocate. In other words, he executes the advocate’s wishes. Although

both parties were aware that such relationship was sometimes unequal in status, each of

them found it useful to form alliances with someone superior or inferior to himself.

Humankind would always seek to achieve self-interests and would take others into

account, regardless of status, as long as the self-interests were not compromised. The

networks were self-regulating as there were no formal regulations but legitimated by

certain values determined by the parties involved. This relationship was not about loyalty

but provision, sustenance, favours and reciprocity. Therefore, it was not that members of

secret societies substituted their allegiance to their headmen to another different level of

authority as whichever party failed to fulfil its side of the obligation would lose the

support and free the other party of its obligation. In some instances, there were

businessmen and politicians who were headmen of secret societies or had secret societies

under their payroll.

Like all relationships, the network connections were also subject to changes.

Advocates might find their power reduced as a result of bankruptcies, losing at elections

and even trouble with the law. When advocates lost their power, the executives were free

from their obligations and they could look for other advocates. Thus far, there were no

known cases whereby advocates refused to fulfil their side of the bargain after obtaining

114

the services from their executives as those who entered into such relations would be aware

of the obligations involved. Moreover, when one was dealing with secret societies, one

had to be cautious due to the constant deployment of strong-arm tactics by the members.

However, the possibility of some form of vendetta against the party which could not fulfil

its side of the bargain should not be ruled out.

In short, advocates acted like entrepreneurs who built and managed an enterprise

for the pursuit of their own agenda in the course of which they innovated and took risks.5

However, in some cases, they might not have the networks or resources needed for their

pursuits. Hence, they needed intermediaries or facilitators to introduce contacts. For this

reason, facilitators were bridges for people to come into a working relationship in which

they otherwise would not.6 The distinguishing factor between advocates and facilitators

lay in terms of the resources they possessed. If a person had direct access to land, jobs,

scholarship funds or specialised knowledge (also known as “first order resources”) and he

entered into such connections, then that person is an advocate. However, if he had

strategic contacts (or “second order resources”) with other people who had direct control

over the first order resources, that person was the facilitator.7

Using the above definition, we could thus conclude that there were basically three

types of networks occurring in the “urban underworld.” The first type (Type A), as seen

5 Jeremy Boissevain (1974), Friends of Friends: Networks, Manipulators and Coalitions, Oxford: Basil Blackwell, p. 147. 6 Liddick (1996), An Empirical Overview of Organised Crime, pp. 202-203. 7 Adapted from Boissevain (1974), Friends of Friends, p. 147.

115

in Figure 1 and 2 below, shows politicians and business community as “advocates” and

secret societies as “executives.”

Figure 1

politicians/businessmen (advocates)

ss1 ss2 (executives)

Figure 2 advocates

(politicians/ businessmen executive 2

(ss2) executive 1 (ss1)

In Figure 1, politicians and businessmen had direct control over secret societies. Hence,

the connection is vertical in fashion as they were at the top of the hierarchy. In Figure 2,

the relation between the advocates and executives was horizontal-like as secret societies

were not directly controlled by the advocates as the latter needed the assistance of secret

societies during elections (as election helpers and canvassers for votes) and securing

workers for their businesses. In return, they were obliged to help their secret society

friends when the need arose.8

The second type of networks (Type B) involved a facilitator as in Figure 3 and 4

below: 8 In Chapter 4 (p. 16) of this dissertation, it was reported that some labour groups were hiring secret societies to “stress” their arguments during internal disputes. Due to the lack of information, I am unable to include this in the network association pyramids.

116

Figure 3

politicians/businessmen (advocates) │

rs had to depend on their contacts to

aise with voters. However, their liaison personnel may not have direct access to voters

contacts (facilitators) │

secret societies (executives) │ voters/workers

Politicians who did not have direct access to vote

li

and hence, obtained the assistance from secret societies. The advocates might or might

not be keenly aware that secret societies were involved in canvassing for votes on his

behalf as he had depended on the intermediaries for assistance. Sometimes, the

relationship might not be in a vertical or horizontal fashion but overlap as shown below:

Figure 4

The third type of network (Type C) is summarised in Figure 5 below:

Figure 5

police hawkers shopkeepers (executives)

It could be argued that the above figure was one of cooperation and compliance from the

mpulsion to

work with the secret societies as they were willing to provide information of raids at secret

secret societies (advocates)

voters ss 1 facilitators advocates

ss 2 voters

executives. The police, unlike the hawkers and shopkeepers, were under no co

117

society hideouts and economic activities for a fee. Hawkers and shopkeepers, out of fear

of reprisals, consented to offer protection money to secret societies. In this instance, there

was an element of coercion.

The networks secret societies had with these community leaders and politicians is

somewhat different from the relation between secret societies had with political parties

uch as the Kuomintang (KMT) and the Malayan Communist Party (MCP) and

e advocates and executives or how much more one needed the

ther.9 However, the colonial rule system had affected the “comprehensiveness of

s

community leaders of the anti-Japanese fund raising in the 1930s as seen in Chapter 3 of

this research. In some instances, members of triad groups had to break ties with secret

societies when they joined these political parties. Hence, the relationship would be one of

co-optation rather than a network as their identity as a member of secret society would be

subsumed under the political body. Moreover, even though secret societies were involved

in the anti-Japanese fund raising activities in the 1930s, hence, had to cooperate with

community leaders who were at the forefront, such a relationship could have been purely a

concerted effort of all Chinese doing their utmost to help in the war. Undoubtedly, there

might have been exchanges of services and favours but in the absence of raw data, it

remained inconclusive.

In essence, networks, with or without facilitators, depended largely on the relative

bargaining positions of th

o

9 James C. Scott, ‘The Erosion of Patron-Client Bonds and Social Change in Rural Southeast Asia,’ Journal of Asian Studies, Vol. 32, No. 1, Nov 1972, p. 7.

118

exchange and the relative bargaining position of executives.”10 The British had brought

their own law and institutions which impinged on the networks, offering alternative

services to both politicians and the business community and hawkers. This had seriously

challenged the very survival of secret societies.11

Type A Network Connection: Business Community

y leaders had received help from It was well-known that many of the communit

secret societies before they became eminent.12 There were big businessmen who formed

secret societies or employed secret societies to protect their businesses and intimidate

others.13 Some secret societies ran coolie houses and for a commission, businessmen

could obtain workers for their businesses. Hence, many of these businessmen joined

secret societies so as to tap into the labour market14 for workers for their rubber and

pineapple factories and coolies for their warehouses. In the midst of a highly competitive

economy, it was inevitable that serious rivalries, threats and blackmails would occur.

Whenever these businessmen were threatened or blackmailed and they would like to

determine those responsible, they would turn to secret societies for underground work.

There were also businessmen who were not members of any triad, yet cooperated with

them and even became quite influential and respected by triad members.15 In return,

10 Ibid. 11 More will be discussed in the later part of this chapter.

Mr. Fong Chiok Kai12 Tan Beng Luan, Chinese Dialect Groups: Interview with , Oral History Unit, Acc. No. 185, Reel No. 5 (audiocassette), 15 Jun 1982; Pitt Kuan Wah, Chinese Dialect Groups: Interview with Mr. Lim Nang Seng, Oral History Department, Acc. No. 308, Reel No. 17 (audiocassette), 26 Sep 1985. 13 Rajan Supramaniam, Communities of Singapore: Interview with Mr. Sivapathasundaram Sangarapillai, Oral History Department, Acc. No. 1339, Reel No. 17 (audiocassette), 19 Dec 1991. 14 Yao Souchou, Chinese Dialect Groups: Interview with Mr. Chua Chong Ho, Archives and Oral History Department, Acc. No. 430, Reel No. 6 (audiocassette), 4 Jun 1984. 15 Ibid.

119

secret societies would receive commission, jobs, housing, meals and other forms of

benefits.

The network could thus be summarised in Figures 6 below:

Figure 6

business community (advocates)

Figure 6 shows the dependence on secret societies to tap into the labour market by

e bus

Figure 7

│ secret societies (workers) (executives)

th iness community which was hiring members of secret societies directly as workers.

Sometimes, it was through the influence of secret societies that businessmen were able to

obtain workers as seen in Figure 7 below:

busine nity (advocates) secret societies (executives)

The network was even extended to areas outside of Singapore. In 1937, when the

ss commu |

| workers

Japanese were conquering territories in China, many overseas Chinese communities were

boycotting Japanese goods. The Chinese in Bangkok made serious efforts to crush

Japanese trade in Thailand by “importing Singapore secret societies to intimidate

merchants who deal in Japanese goods.”16 Secret societies sent warning letters to those

merchants, asking them to stop such business for the plain reason that their country was at

16 ‘Bangkok Chinese are Boycotting Japan,’ Singapore Free Press, 8 November 1937, p. 3. Although the d not specify how secret societies were “imported” into Thailand, it is my guess that secret press report di

societies in Singapore were hired and they moved to the Thai capital. It was not stated what benefits these secret societies received from the Bangkok Chinese.

120

war with Japan. If the warnings were ignored, drastic actions would be taken. In the

month of October that year, eight serious stabbings resulted due to the failure to comply

with the threats.17

Type A Network Connection: Politicians

lishment of networks between politicians and It was during elections that the estab

secret societies was most evident. There were many areas for cooperation. When

Singapore had its first elections, the responsibility of ferrying voters to polling stations fell

onto the candidates. Candidates had to borrow or rent trucks and cars in order to get

votes. Politicians might not have sufficient resources to do so but not the secret societies.

They had the contacts and ability to mobilize cars, lorries and drivers at the shortest

possible time. Politicians needed helpers to put up party banners and personal posters in

the constituencies they were running. Secret societies were able to mobilize their

members to put them up and run errands for them. Politicians needed votes which secret

societies could help canvass for them. Sometimes politicians needed “protection” from

their rivals and their over zealous supporters. Members of secret societies could act as

their bodyguards while they were campaigning for votes. Such services had to be

remunerated. Mr Koh Choon Hong, a candidate for the Tanjong Pagar Division at the

1957 by-election, engaged the Headman and a member of the 969 secret society of 24

Group, four members of other secret societies of the same Group and a member of a secret

society of 18 Group at a daily remuneration of $12 each, to canvass for votes; six of them

17 Ibid.

121

were to protect his election meetings as well.18 (Please refer to the two tables below)

Some were paid $400 per month to put up election posters.19 Even food, refreshments and

cigarettes were handed out to members of the Sio Eng Hiong secret society of 108 Group,

who were putting up election posters for Mr Lee Kuan Yew in the Tanjong Pagar area.20

The fundamental truth in these relations was that secret societies did not support the

political party but individual politicians. This means that secret societies did not have any

political affiliation with or inclination towards any of the political parties but had agreed

to help due to certain benefits and favours they could obtain from individual politicians.

1957 By-Election in Cairnhill and Tanjong Pagar: Allegations of Secret Societies’ Involvement in Canvassing Votes 21

Cairnhill Division: Name Political Party Secret Society Involved Occupation/Position Abdul Majid Mirza

Independent No mention of any secret society involvement

President of the Malayan National Seamen’s Union

Goh Kong Beng

Independent Sar Ji Group which included the Kun Heng Kok secret society of the Group; also had the assistance of Aw Ee Meng, a protected member of the Group

President of the Singapore Teachers’ Union

Keng Ban Ee Labour-Front Aided by Jiman bin Simen @Panjang, Headman of 329 secret society of 36 Group; also obtained assistance from M. Rajapal Thamoo

Committee member of the Labour Front

18 Report of the Commission of Inquiry into Corrupt, Illegal or Undesirable Practices at Elections, 1958, p.18. 19 Ibid, p. 17. Mr. Chong Wee Ling, candidate for the Tanjong Pagar Division, offered Aw Sai Soo, a member of the Tai Chap Wee secret society of 24 Group, this sum of money. 20 Ibid, p. 17. 21 Extracted from Report of the Commission of Inquiry into Corrupt, Illegal or Undesirable Practices at Elections, 1958, pp. 16-20.

122

@Panjang, Headman of the Black & White secret society of 24 Group

Soh Ghee Soon

Liberal-Socialist Party

Assisted by Lim Toh Heng, General Headman of Lau Yong Heng secret society of Sar Ji Group in Mohamed Sultan Road area; also assisted by members of 18 Group

Businessman; serving member of several sporting bodies

Tengku Muda M. bin Mahmud

Malay Union No mention of any secret society involvement

Great grandson of the last Singapore Sultan (Hussain M. Shah)

Tanjong Pagar Division: Name Political Party Secret Society Involved Occupation/Position Chong Wee Ling

Liberal-Socialist Party

Assisted by brother Chong Chiang Ling @Lau Hor Kia, General Headman of Chap Sa Io secret society of 18 Group and obtained help from 108 Group active in the Tanjong Pagar division; also assisted by 309 Group, 888 secret society of 24 Group, 206 secret society & 909 secret society of 108 Group; help also obtained from Tng Teck Hock @Teck Ho and Hai Lok San secret society of 108 Group, Aw Sai Soo of Tai Chap Wee secret society of 24 Group was given a monthly remuneration of $400; 969 secret society of 24 Group

President of the Singapore Bus Owners’ Association

Koh Choon Hong

Independent Engaged the Headman and members of 969 secret society of 24 Group and a member of secret society of 18 Group at a daily

Lawyer; founder-member of the Labour Front

123

remuneration of $12 each; also obtained help from secret society of 108 Group

Lee Kuan Yew

People’s Action Party

Supported by members of secret society of 108 Group and 969 secret society of 24 Group of the Cantonese section of Chinatown; Ho Beh Swee, leader of Ho clan & Committee member of Tanjong Pagar Branch of the PAP, supplied food & refreshments to members of Sio Eng Hiong secret society of 108 Group

Lawyer; Secretary-General of PAP; former member of the Legislative Assembly

Indeed, such close working ties were very rampant. Secret societies had started

their involvement in elections during the 1954 and 1955 Legislative Assembly Elections.

In 1954, it was reported in the Singapore Free Press that an Indian businessman, Mr V. S.

Padmanabhan, a candidate in the Changi division, reported to the police that he was

threatened by a gang if he did not pay protection money.22 Sales of block votes, collecting

signatures as written guarantees of their votes and promises of victory bonuses, corrupt

entertainment and payment to canvassers were some of the allegations that were rife in

1955.23 Due to the lack of hard evidence, there was no action taken to curb such activities.

However, during the 1957 by-election in the Cairnhill and Tanjong Pagar constituencies,

secret society involvement was not only rife but they were getting more violent in their

methods to obtain more votes for their candidates they supported. An official inquiry was

conducted and the report alarmed the British authorities. Out of the eight candidates

running in the by-election, only two had no known secret society involvement. There 22 ‘Gang Threatens Polls Man,’ Singapore Free Press, 2 October 1954, p. 1. 23 ‘Election Workers Use Novel Vote Tactics,’ Singapore Free Press, 14 January 1955, p. 7.

124

were instances where more than one secret society was hired as each secret society had

strong influence in certain areas in a constituency. Hence, in order to garner more

support, it was not surprising that rival secret societies were recruited. This was not

indicative that rival secret societies were cooperating with each other. Indeed, rivalries

between secret societies did not abate even though they shared the same advocates. The

network could thus be summarised in Figure 8 below:

Figure 8

politicians (advocates)

ss1 ss2 ss3 (executives) │ │ │ voters voters voters

Type B Network Connection: Facilitatorship

Indeed, not all politicians were actively engaging secret society services. Some

might be ignorant as their friends and co-workers were engaging members of secret

societies as helpers. Others, though may be aware, did not reject the offer of assistance.

One of the candidates for the Cairnhill Division, Mr Goh Kong Beng, acknowledged that

he had been introduced to Aw Ee Meng, a protected member of the Sar Ji Group (although

he denied that he was aware of Aw’s secret society connections), by a friend, in

consequence of a remark that he was worried about his prospects in the Mohamed Sultan

Road area because he knew no one there.24 Thus, the network pyramid would be:

24 Report of the Commission of Inquiry into Corrupt, Illegal or Undesirable Practices at Elections, 1958, p.18. A “protected member” of a secret society is one who pays contribution but does not participate in the activities of the secret society.

125

Figure 9

Goh Kong Beng (advocate) │

friend (facilitator) │

Aw Ee Meng (facilitator/executive) │ Sar Ji Group (executives)

│ voters

The pyramid above looks complicated due to the different levels of connections. The

friend of Goh Kong Beng in this relationship, played the role of the facilitator since he

introduced Goh to Aw, his contact. Aw performed the role of facilitator as well as he

obtained the services of the secret societies. Aw and the Sar Ji Group were the executives

as ultimately, they were the recipients of benefits should Goh become elected. In this

network, Aw played the dual roles of facilitator and executive.

Mr Lee Kuan Yew, a candidate for the Tanjong Pagar Division, was supported by

members of secret societies of 108 Group and 969 secret society of 24 Group.25 Yet, it

was Lee who started the motion on the subject of corrupt and improper practices at

elections in the Legislative Assembly that triggered the inquiry into the 1957 by-

elections.26 It was then uncovered at the Inquiry that it was Mr Ho Beh Swee, a

Committee member of the Tanjong Pagar Branch of the People’s Action Party (PAP) and

also the leader of the Ho clan in the area, who had supplied food and refreshments to

members of the Sio Eng Hiong secret society of the 108 Group who were putting up

25 Ibid, p.17. 26 Ibid, p.11.

126

election posters.27 The Ho clan was found to have associations with the 206, 309 and the

Hai Lok San secret societies of the 108 Group. It was likely that Ho had engaged the

members of secret societies without the knowledge of Lee. In this situation, the network

diagram would be

Figure 10

Lee Kuan Yew (advocate)

Ho Beh Swee (facilitator)

secret societies (executives)

voters

On the surface, it might seem that the secret societies were involved for petty

benefits such as food, refreshments and cigarettes. However, should Lee Kuan Yew (a

lawyer by profession) be elected and members of secret societies ran foul of the law, they

hoped that they could obtain Lee’s services through Ho.

Although Lee and Goh might not have actively sought assistance from or keenly

aware of the facilitators’ dealings with the secret societies, they were classified as ‘passive

advocates’ as firstly, they had indeed benefited from the help rendered by members of

secret societies and secondly, they left most of the operations to the facilitators28 and

remained “ignorant” of their dealings with secret societies during elections. It was indeed

difficult to ascertain whether advocates were aware of the facilitators’ dealings with

members of secret societies, even during official inquiries. However, as Goh had sought

the assistance from a friend and had accepted Aw’s help (regardless whether Goh knew of

27 Ibid, p.17. 28 I would describe advocates who are actively aware and supportive (or at least give tacit approval) of the facilitators’ dealings with members of secret societies as “active advocates.” Due to the lack of examples, I am unable to describe the role of active advocates in the facilitatorship system.

127

Aw’s connections), therefore, his relationship with the facilitators and executives was

vertical as compared to Lee’s.

The reasons for the preferred role of facilitators were many. Goh’s friend could

have introduced Aw to him as a type of favour. There was also the possibility of gaining

additional favours in return if the relationship became successful. As for Ho Beh Swee,

he was committee member of the Tanjong Pagar Branch of the PAP and should Lee lose

his seat, his own position would also be jeopardised. Facilitators, like advocates, were

also motivated by benefits and incentives. In addition, they were highly concerned about

their positions in society. There was also the possibility that facilitators were “advocates”

who were unable to fulfil their obligations to their “executives” as they did not have the

resources to do so. By accepting the position of a facilitator, he could fulfil his obligations

and continue to receive the goodwill from the active and/or passive advocates and the

executives in these networks.

Members of secret societies did not enter into a network just for petty gains.

They were well aware of the advantages they possessed if they had actively supported a

candidate during elections. For once the candidate was elected, they would then “have a

member of the legislature to whom they could appeal if in trouble.”29 There were several

occasions when secret society members when arrested, sought the protection of the

Assemblyman elected for their area.30 The Assemblyman was informed of the

unwarranted arrests by the police and hence, felt that it was his duty to make enquiries.

29 Wilfred Blythe (1969), The Impact of Chinese Secret Societies in Malaya: A Historical Study, London: Oxford University Press, p. 471. 30 Ibid, p. 472.

128

Members of secret societies had hoped that the active support of a successful candidate

would be “a prospect of weakening the power of the police,”31 who was determined to

wipe out the menace posed by triad groups. The secret societies had hoped that the

support from Assemblymen would dampen the morale of the police and thwart their

efforts in eliminating the secret societies.

Through the active participation in the electoral process, members of secret

societies had attempted to politicise the network cultivated with politicians. Before such

relations could congeal, the British, ever alarmed at secret society involvement, enforced

more stringent rules pertaining to elections; rendering it more difficult for secret societies

to take advantage of the opportunities presented during elections in reviving and

maintaining such relationships.32

Type C Network Connection: Police Connivance

Police cooperation is a form of connivance as the police were only interested in

obtaining bribes in exchange for information on raids of secret society operations.

Although some police officers were determined to wipe out the menace posed by triad

groups, there were black sheep in their midst. Some of the police officers working in the

Secret Societies Branch of the Criminal Investigation Department were former secret

society members who were recruited into the police force to help solve crimes relating to

31 Ibid. 32 These rules include making voting compulsory which rendered canvassing on polling day unnecessary; making polling day a public holiday and the prohibition of providing private transport for voters. For the full description of these rules, please refer to Report of the Commission of Inquiry into Corrupt, Illegal or Undesirable Practices at Elections, 1958, pp. 34-40.

129

secret society activities.33 They continued to maintain friendly relations with secret

societies even though they were on opposing sides. Consequently, it was quite common

that the police ignored calls for help from the public34 as they had been bribed not to

intervene. Indeed, police corruption was so rife that people would spit at the Telok Ayer

Police Station whenever they walked past it.35 As the police were on the receiving end in

this relationship, they were the executives while the secret societies had become the

advocates as the police executed the wishes of secret societies; that is, the guarantee of the

safe conduct of their operations. Thus, the network cluster would be:

Figure 11

ss1 ss2 ss3 (advocates)

police (executives)

The bribery of police officers served a dual function. By paying off the police

officers, not only would it ensure that secret societies would be prepared for police raids, it

would also ensure that no action would be taken by them when the public complained

about secret society activities and harassment. Police inaction would then leave the public

vulnerable to secret society threats and therefore, had no option but to comply with the

demands of secret societies. On one hand, the British government was organizing police

operations such as “Operation Dagger” and “Operation Pereksa” (Examination), yet on

33 Tan Beng Luan, Chinese Dialect Groups: Interview with Mr. Fong Chiok Kai, Oral History Unit, Acc. No. 185, Reel No. 17 (audiocassette), 12 Oct 1982; Tan Beng Luan, Chinese Dialect Groups: Interview with Mr. Soon Eng Boh, Oral History Unit, Acc. No. 142, Reel No. 6 (audiocassette), 23 Feb 1982; Chai Yong Hwa, Chinese Dialect Groups: Interview with Mr. Ong Chye Hock, Oral History Unit, Acc. No. 168, Reel No. 18 (audiocassette), 10 Apr 1982. 34 Tan Beng Luan, Chinese Dialect Groups: Interview with Mr. Fong Chiok Kai, Oral History Unit, Acc. No. 185, Reel No. 16 (audiocassette), 12 Oct 1982. 35 Yao Souchou, Chinese Dialect Groups: Interview with Mr. Chua Chong Ho, Archives and Oral History Department, Acc. No. 430, Reel No. 7 (audiocassette), 4 Jun 1984.

130

the other, the police were conniving with the triads. Triad groups were quick to capitalize

on their connections with the corrupt members of the police force to avoid the police

dragnet.

Type C Network Connection: Pay-For-Protection

Protection rackets were the usual type of business that secret societies were

involved. Hawkers, shopkeepers, coffee shop owners, prostitutes and other small

businesses pay protection money to the advocate so that they could eke out a living. Some

did voluntarily; others did it out of fear due to the violent methods used by secret

societies. The “voluntary” group included street theatre operators as they needed bouncers

to keep watch over their theatres.36 Payment was usually in the form of tickets at

discounted prices which resulted in the existence of a black market for theatre tickets and

this made secret societies rich.37

The networks with the “involuntary” group were unique as the demand for

protection was created by the advocates. Small businessmen who would like to operate a

business in an area controlled by a secret society, had to pay protection money. If they

refused to pay, their businesses would be disrupted, their properties destroyed and worse,

their lives endangered until they paid up or moved to another area. Sometimes, when a

secret society was displaced by a stronger rival, then whichever side won that territorial

36 Ng Sin Yue, Chinese Dialect Groups: Interview with Mr. Kwang Poh, Oral History Unit, Acc. No. 256, Reel No. 6 (audiocassette), 3 Mar 1983. 37 Ang Siew Ghim, Chinese Dialect Groups: Interview with Mr. Chia Soon Ann, Oral History Department, Acc. No. 465, Reel No. 39 (audiocassette), 9 Jan 1986.

131

right would harass all hawkers and shopkeepers in that area and the small businesses

would have to pay to the stronger secret society.38

Strong arm tactics were not the only way that secret societies used to coerce small

businesses to pay for their maintenance. They often came up with different ways to

remind the hawkers to pay their protection money. These reminders could come in the

form of Chinese New Year greeting cards, probably due to the tradition of giving money

for good luck during the festive occasion. At first glance, these cards might seem

harmless but the words convey an insidious meaning. In addition to the usual greetings

such as “Wishing You a Happy New Year” and “May All Enterprises Meet with Success,”

the names of the secret societies and reminders such as “I Pay Homage” were also printed

on these cards.39 Failure to comply would result in assaults, destruction of property and

more threats. The pay-for-protection type of connections could therefore be summarized

in the following figure:

Figure 12

secret societies (advocates)

hawkers shopkeepers prostitutes (executives)

38 The number of territories was not the only benchmark in assessing the strength of the power and influence each secret society possessed as secret societies did not depend solely on their protection rackets for survival. In some cases, with strong support from influential patrons, secret societies were able to operate in several areas and in different types of employment. 39 Singapore Police Force (1958), Chinese Secret Societies in Singapore, Singapore: CID, p. 34. See also ‘New Year Cards with a Sting,’ Straits Times, 7 January 1960.

132

Type C Network Connection: Recommendation for Employment

As mentioned earlier, many businessmen relied on the secret societies to obtain

workers for their factories and warehouses. Before one could work in pineapple and

rubber factories, one must get recommendation from workers who were already working

in them.40 Most of these workers, if not all, were members of secret societies and to work

in these factories, one must join the secret society there. Hence, secret society

membership had become a prerequisite for jobs in these factories.

Membership did indeed have its “privileges.” Secret societies were highly

protective of their members. If any family member of secret society members were to

pass away, other members of the secret society would mourn with them41 In addition,

they would collect donations and give them to the bereaved family and send wreaths and

scrolls.42 Families of members of secret societies who were sent to prison would receive

help from the secret societies until their release.43 In addition, these members would also

be given a special bonus if they had refused to divulge any names.44

40 Chai Yong Hwa, Chinese Dialect Groups: Interview with Mr. Ong Chye Hock, Oral History Unit, Acc. No. 168, Reel Nos. 17, 18 (audiocassettes), 10 Apr 1982. 41 Yao Souchou, Chinese Dialect Groups: Interview with Mr. Chua Chong Ho, Archives and Oral History Department, Acc. No. 430, Reel No. 7 (audiocassette), 4 Jun 1984. 42 Singapore Police Force (1958), Chinese Secret Societies in Singapore, p. 70. A worker from the Singapore Harbour Board, Mr. Teo Tian Seng, received a wreath during his father’s funeral wake from the employees of the Singapore Harbour Board who were from the 505 Gang. 505 Gang was a branch of the 108 Group of secret societies. See also Straits Times, 14 November 1975. 43 Liana Tan, Chinese Dialect Groups: Interview with Mr. Lim Kim Guan, Oral History Unit, Acc. No. 280, Reel No. 10 (audiocassette), 11 Jul 1983. 44 Ibid.

133

Cooperation as a Form of Control

Control involves an idea of a person or other force having the power to change or

stop something. Control over the secret societies could be achieved through the network

connections, in addition to prohibition through legislation. For example, in Figure 13

below, Advocate A could make use of his relationship with secret societies to control the

threats and excesses from his rivals and supporters.

Figure 13

Advocate A Advocate B

ss1 ss2 ss3 ss4

Occasionally, advocates might use their influence to pressure their executives to reduce

their activities for fear of police checks, destruction of their reputation and image or for

the general good of the community.

There were several occasions where advocates and facilitators used their influence

over the secret societies at the intervention of people who were of a higher social status

than them. One example was the dispute in the Tanjong Pagar Division. Prior to the 1957

by-election, a fight between members of the Ji Tok Kiat secret society of 24 Group and the

206, 309 and Hai Lok San secret societies of 108 Group occurred in Duxton Road,

Tanjong Pagar.45 This dispute invariably involved the two Chinese clans in the area as the

24 Group was associated with the Teo clan while the 108 Group was associated with the

45 For the full details, please refer to Report of the Commission of Inquiry into Corrupt, Illegal or Undesirable Practices at Elections, 1958, pp. 15-16.

134

Ho clan. Mr Lee Kuan Yew was informed of this by the leader of the Ho clan, Mr Ho Beh

Swee, who was also the Committee member of the Tanjong Pagar Branch of the PAP.

Lee contacted Mr William Tan, the Liberal-Socialist member of the Legislative Assembly

for Tiong Bahru Division as the members of the Teo clan were his supporters. Both

Assemblymen mediated in the dispute in the presence of the Superintendent of Police in

charge of the Secret Societies Branch of the Criminal Investigation Department. A

settlement was reached between Mr Ho and Mr Teo Choon Huat, the leader of the Teo

clan and the situation remained calm even during the by-election. If a compromise had

not been reached, violence would disrupt the election and the British authorities would

have to adopt punitive measures against members of secret societies. Through this

episode, the ability of secret societies to beat a hasty retreat before more punitive measures

were taken against them served to prolong their existence.

It has been discussed in Figure 10, that Mr Lee Kuan Yew was a passive advocate

of secret societies. It was his co-worker, Mr Ho, who had direct contact with secret

societies. Lee had used his own influence over Ho to settle the dispute between the rival

secret societies. Hence, the control over the secret society activities came from the

influence of a third party.

Controlling the secret societies was not equivalent to controlling their excesses.

The demand for protection money was a type of excesses but some hawkers and

shopkeepers notwithstandingly paid. This was a way of controlling their actions, that is,

stopping them from damaging their property and destroying their livelihood. In the

absence of alternative government protection agencies, small businesses could only

135

comply. It was only through police connivance with the secret societies that the control

over the triad groups was absent as police connivance only served to embolden the secret

societies.

Dynamics of Networking

Networks between the mainstream and the underworld were never static. Social

changes were constantly taking place and this had serious ramifications on these networks.

Changes to such relations occurred when one party gained more leverage over the other

over a period of time and this was dependent on the strength of advocates, the bargaining

position of executives and the changes occurred within a society as it progressed over

time.

If advocates lost their high socioeconomic status through bankruptcy or their seat

in the Legislative Assembly, they would lose their ability to grant benefits to the secret

societies. Secret societies would then have to look for other advocates. Similarly, if

secret societies lost their territorial rights to their rivals, they would lose their claim to

collect protection money in the area.

Conversely, the higher the socioeconomic status, the more sought after the

advocates would be. In addition, the advocates would also be able to exercise greater

influence and control over the secret societies. Likewise, if a secret society was strong

despite the competition, they would be able to dominate more areas and in more areas of

employment. Hence, the balance of power would be tipped towards the advocates’ end.

136

The bargaining position of the executives also changed over time. When

advocates needed and actively engaged the assistance of the secret societies to canvass for

votes during elections, they would be more agreeable to the demands of their executives.

However, the British implementation of the changes to the electoral process greatly

affected these networks. Indeed, politicians now could directly approach the voters

without the need of a third party.

The commercialization of Singapore’s economy and the growth of the global

market strengthened the demand for skilled labour. Secret societies had dominated the

unskilled labour force and the dependence on them for unskilled labour gradually whittled

away by the 1930s as the economy progressed. Simultaneously, services provided by

mainstream institutions expanded and improved so the general public’s fear of the secret

society power began to reduce gradually.

As these networks were the building blocks for social interaction, changes to them

would affect it. Politicians and the business community depended on the secret society

influence to reach out to voters and to tap into the labour market. Social changes and

changes to the electoral process had broken up this dependence. The cooperation with the

higher socioeconomic class served to sustain the secret societies but this was only a

temporary reprieve. Once the support from the advocates and executives had been

removed, secret societies would have to face mounting challenges to their existence.

British rule had impinged on these networks as they effected changes to the

electoral process and improving the services provided by governmental agencies. The

137

British were not against such networks per se but they were very concerned about the

parties involved. To the British, no dealings should be made with secret societies as they

were outlawed, especially when secret societies were a state within an empire. As time

progressed, the need for such networks with secret societies diminished. It could be

argued that the focus of such relations have been shifted to having ties with government

agencies, which was another manifestation of networking. Hence, these networks with

secret societies lost its importance. In addition, secret societies became so disruptive to

the larger society that they became more alienated from the public.

Secret societies always had the ability to manipulate relationships for their own

benefit. Attempts to weaken the power of the police through the support of candidates at

elections were some of the ways in gaining leverage and finding sustenance. Through the

years, the general perception of secret societies had changed from being mutual help

associations to social menace; coupled with the social changes that were occurring, the

networks with secret societies began to erode and regarded as less acceptable to the

general public. Moreover, the strengths and resources the secret societies possessed were

no longer relevant to the ever-changing society, brought on by the marketisation of the

economy, accelerated urbanisation and the expansion of central administrations.46 Hence,

secret societies lost their place in society not because of the prohibition but due to the

rejection from the public. As society gained sophistication and had experienced the

coercive power of triad groups, it was ready to put a stop to their excesses when the

opportunity was presented.

46 Luis Roniger, ‘The Comparative Study of Clientelism and the Changing Nature of Civil Society in the Contemporary World,’ in Luis Roniger and Ayşe Günes-Ayata (eds.) (1994), Democracy, Clientelism and Civil Society, Boulder: Lynne Rienner Publishers, p. 11.

138

CONCLUSION

The various survival strategies deployed by secret societies showed their

willingness in changing and modifying their modus operandi when circumstances did not

favour them. Despite the tag of “security threat,” “thugs,” “gangsters” and the

proscription by the British authorities and the difficult social and economic conditions

they faced, they could still find a niche for themselves. This was in part aided by the

constant attempts of co-optation and the open cooperation by sections of the larger society

so as to advance their individual agenda. Political players such as community leaders, the

Kuomintang Party (KMT), the Malayan Communist Party (MCP) and even the Japanese

were quick to capitalize on the potential of secret societies. These political players knew

that in order to gain access to mass support and acceptance, they needed the goodwill of

secret societies.

Although the political players shared the common purpose of winning members of

triad groups to their side, they adopted different methods. Community leaders were

willing to cooperate with triad groups. In reality, some of them had connections with triad

groups (ranging from being former members of secret societies to just being friendly)

before they became prominent public figures. The large base of manpower, their

incredible mobility of members and the aura of secrecy they possessed were instrumental

to the advancement of self-interests. The pervasiveness of secret societies in the everyday

lives of the community was too strong to be ignored.

On the other hand, the relationship between secret societies and the KMT and the

MCP was more of an attempt to co-opt members of secret societies as the identity of

139

secret society members was subsumed under party membership. Each party would like to

tap on to the power and influence secret societies had over the rest of the Singapore

society which was predominantly Chinese. It was quite unlike the relationship that the

business community and local politicians had with triad groups. The political agenda and

the interests of the political parties were not to be compromised.

Members of secret societies were not easy preys for these political parties to

exploit. Neither were they mere foot soldiers who were content to allow their political

patrons manipulate them. There was great mutual distrust and the lack of success in

gaining the full cooperation from the secret societies by the political parties was testament

to the apathy and unwillingness of the secret societies in surrendering their power. The

majority of triad groups remained cold towards the causes and objectives of the KMT and

MCP. This was because the alignment with these political bodies was not a result of any

type of inclination towards a particular political ideology but more as a means of hiding

behind a greater power or influence for survival, revenge-taking and victimizing. The

alignment with the KMT and the MCP was more evident after the Japanese Occupation as

there were members of secret societies who had indeed suffered at the hands of Japanese

oppressors and their collaborators. Hence, there was a great sense of anger which was

followed by an increase in the aggressive action of “righting the wrongs” they had

suffered or simply firing the first salvo.

The Japanese were by far, the most aggressive in their treatment of members of

secret societies. Although they recognized that secret societies were regarded as one of

the centres of Chinese patriotism, they freed some of them on detention warrants served

140

by the British when they occupied Singapore, on the condition that they served the

Japanese empire. In reality, these members of triads did not have a choice as they would

be tortured and executed by the Japanese just the same should they refuse. Not

surprisingly, the Japanese would dangle a carrot for members of triad groups to entice

them to serve as spies through the offer of protection and enough food to sustain members

of triad groups and their families and the acquiescence of the continuation of gambling

operations and protection racketeering. With the collaboration of secret societies, the

Japanese authorities were able to use terror methods to great effects in order to control

Singapore within the shortest time.

However, there were members of triads who did not collaborate with the Japanese

but went into the jungles to fight against them. Some joined the Malayan People’s Anti-

Japanese Army (or MPAJA, under the aegis of the MCP) or the Overseas Chinese Anti-

Japanese Army (or OCAJA, under the flag of the KMT.) After the war, some of them lay

down their arms and tried to resume their lives while some continued to fight for

independence against the British.

The British were never interested in dealing with the secret societies since the

official proscription in 1890. They did not desire to share power nor give official

recognition to any group which they felt were threatening their supremacy. Police

operations such as “Operation Dagger” and “Operation Pereksa” (Examination) were

conducted to wipe out the secret society menace but they brought limited success. The

lack of court convictions, the unwillingness of witnesses to testify and the “guerilla’ style

of secret society operations were some of the reasons for the limited success in police

141

operations. The different signals given by the different personnel of British authorities

regarding the necessity of adopting the various operations against the secret societies

served to embolden secret societies as the latter knew that there was no single-minded

focus in dealing with them. Hence, they were not fearful of the authorities’ power. In

addition, the British authorities neglected to deal effectively other important aspects such

as education and the high unemployment rate as these would absorb members of triads

into the process of modernizing the economy. Consequently, the results were not

commensurate with their efforts.

The fight for survival for the secret societies was not confine to the proscription of

their existence but also in the harsh social and economic conditions that plagued

Singapore after the war. Like any other ordinary person, members of secret societies

could not escape from the harsh conditions and they too had to meet their basic needs as

well as their families’. Operating the illegal trade such as prostitution rings, gambling and

smuggling operations, running pick pocketing classes and conducting armed robberies

were some of the ways in finding and supplementing income. Efforts in improving the

social and economic conditions such as public housing, trade schools and Chinese-

medium skills training centres were inadequate in helping Singaporeans in general

overcome poverty.

It is indeed not surprising that members of secret societies also formed networks

with members from “mainstream” society. Politicians as well as businessmen needed the

assistance of secret societies to aid them during elections and looking for workers. Street

theatre operators needed the muscles of secret societies to fend off competitors and

142

trouble-makers so as to conduct their business. Secret societies also preyed on the fears of

hawkers, brothel operators and other small businessmen and exacted protection money

from them, although some of them were seeking their protection voluntarily. Evidently,

secret societies were indeed useful to the larger community.

The success of secret societies in preying on the fears of the people was also

helped by police connivance. The extra money from secret societies in exchange for

police inaction regarding raids on their premises and the collection of protection money

was not rejected by the police. On one hand, the British government wanted stringent

measures against the secret societies but on the other, the executive arm of the

government, that is the police, were conniving with the triads.

The alignment with political players, the adoption of the “guerilla” style and the

development of network connections were strategies employed by secret societies helped

them to prolong their existence. Certain sections of the community needed their

assistance for their own purposes. However, as society progresses and the need for triad

groups had diminished and replaced with better run agencies, secret societies had lost its

place and function in mainstream society. As Singapore progresses and the subsequent

hardline approach and determination of the People’s Action Party (PAP) in wiping out the

secret society menace after it had controlled the political life of the island, secret societies

gradually faded away from public life.

One of the greatest difficulties in this research was the lack of hard data to form

conclusive evidence about the methods of survival adopted by the secret fraternities. This

143

was not just due to the protracted process of de-classification of records but also the

destruction of police records and other documents.1 There was absolutely no

corroboration with some of the arguments posed by historians over the years. In addition,

secret societies operated clandestinely and hence, would not keep written records of their

dealings. The task of studying their operations and relations with other secret societies in

Singapore as well as in the region remained problematic. It was indeed challenging to

write in details the steps they took to re-invent themselves, how they overcame the

restrictions imposed on them or even the modifications to their operations.

Although there was the lack of hard evidence, especially from the perspective of

secret societies, this was not indicative that a research on survival strategies adopted by

secret societies was impossible to achieve. The existing corpus of documents, though

came from the perspective of authorities, did contain insights on the steps taken by

members of secret societies in overcoming various obstacles to their existence. Moreover,

the Oral History interviews proved to be invaluable in exploring and stretching the

argument further as some of the interviewees were former triad members or had dealings

with triads. Furthermore, seeing members of secret societies as “entrepreneurs” who were

always actively seeking to preserve their self-interests despite the risks involved would

move the research of secret societies further away from the “law and order” paradigm and

the viewpoint of authorities.

1 See Wilfred Blythe (1969), The Impact of Chinese Secret Societies in Malaya: A Historical Study, London: Oxford University Press, p. xii. Some of the police documents were destroyed soon after Blythe had studied them.

144

This research has attempted to explore the reasons for the longevity of secret

societies despite the legal prohibition and uncovered the connectivity between the

“mainstream” and “underworld.” Indeed, there was a very thin line between what was

“mainstream” and “underworld.” There were always people who needed the assistance of

secret societies. This study would also help understand that for a secret society to

survive, it was not enough to impose tough legal measures against it but involved a multi-

faceted approach.

Although secret societies had originated in China, they had assumed a different

form as a way of adapting to the local conditions. It was this ability to adapt to the

changing landscape that they survive even up till this day, although they no longer enjoy

the same power and influence they once had. Some may even label them as a constitution

of a contraculture2 as they are opposed to the dominant values and behavioural norms of

mainstream society; yet, constituted a different culture from the mainstream. This is

indeed an interesting topic for future exploration on the subject. Perhaps such an approach

may shed new light on the history of secret societies in Singapore.

2 Report of a Psycho-social Study of Secret Society Gangsters in Singapore, 6 March 1981, p. 31.

145

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Government Publications: Records of the Government of the Straits Settlements Records of the Government of India relating to the Straits Settlements Reports of the U.S. Consul in Singapore Reports of the Chinese Protectorate in Singapore Straits Settlements Annual Departmental Reports Straits Settlements Blue Books Straits Settlements Government Gazette Straits Settlements Legislative Council Proceedings Straits Settlements Annual Reports Political Intelligence Journals Annual Report of the Singapore Police Force Social Welfare Annual Report Monthly Review of Chinese Affairs Weekly Intelligence Summary CO 273 – Straits Settlements Correspondence WO 106 – Directorate of Military Operations and Intelligence WO 208 – Directorate of Military Intelligence CO 537/2139 – HQ Malaya Command Weekly Intelligence Review CO 537/4862 – Interplay of Chinese Secret and Political Societies in Malaya CO 537/4863 – Chinese Secret Societies: Present Day Activities and Methods of Dealing with Them CO 537/4863 – Letter from O. H. Morrison (Colonial Office) to J. D. Higham CO 1022/202 – Secret Abstract (Military HQ, Fort Canning, Singapore) MSS. Ind.Ocn.s 116 March 1949 – Blythe: The Significance of Chinese Triad Societies in Malaya Straits Settlements (1939). Defence Regulations, 1939 (as amended up to 7 January

1942). Singapore: Government Printer. Report to the Combined Chiefs of Staff by the Supreme Allied Commander, Southeast Asia, 1943-1945 Report of the Singapore Riots Inquiry Commission 1951: Together with a Despatch from His Excellency the Governor of Singapore to the Right Honourable the Secretary of State for the Colonies

146

Report of the Commission of Inquiry into Corrupt, Illegal or Undesirable Practices at Elections, 1958 Report of the Psycho-Social Study of Secret Society Gangsters in Singapore, 1981 Oral History Interviews, National Archives of Singapore: Name of Interviewee: Project Name: Accession

No.: Reel No.:

Chia Soon Ann Chinese Dialect Groups 465 6, 26, 39, 40 Chua Chong Ho Chinese Dialect Groups 430 6, 7 Fong Chiok Kai Chinese Dialect Groups 185 5, 9, 15, 16,

17, 19, 24, 25, 31, 32

Hou Sing Chinese Dialect Groups 326 2, 7 Kwang Koon Chinese Dialect Groups 217 4 Kwang Poh Chinese Dialect Groups 256 6 Lee Tian Kit Chinese Dialect Groups 499 8, 15 Lim Kim Hoon Chinese Dialect Groups 938 4 Lim Nang Seng Chinese Dialect Groups 308 17 Ong Chye Hock Chinese Dialect Groups 168 17, 18, 26,

42, 43 Ong Siew Peng Chinese Dialect Groups 1210 4 Soh Teow Seng Chinese Dialect Groups 454 2, 5 Soon Eng Boh Chinese Dialect Groups 142 5, 6, 13 Sivapathasundaram Sangarapillai

Communities of Singapore (Part 2)

1339 17

Arumugam Muthucumarasamy

Development of Education in Singapore (Part 1: English)

1404 3, 4

Tan Ching Yam Development of Education in Singapore (Part 2: Chinese)

1973 23

Teh Kuan Lee Development of Education in Singapore (Part 2: Chinese)

2067 2

Gay Wan Leong Japanese Occupation of Singapore, 1942-1945

535 7

Ho Bee Swee Political Development in Singapore, 1945-1965

630 2, 3

Chan Kwee Sung Special Project 962 7 Chong Fun Liam@ Tian Lu

Special Project 539 3, 5

Lim Kim Guan Special Project 280 2, 10, 14 Chng Kee Cheong, Ben Special Project (Chinatown) 1020 2 Choo Shu Special Project (Literature) 856 7 Chew Peng Kia, Philip The Civil Service: A

Retrospection 2107 2

Duncanson, Dennis J. The Civil Service: A 642 2

147

(Dr) Retrospection Neill, James Desmond Howard

The Civil Service: A Retrospection

114 2

Shaw, Harold Anthony The Civil Service: A Retrospection

2004 8

Newspapers and Directories: English: Colonial Directory, Straits Settlements Singapore and Malayan Directory Singapore Chronicle Singapore Daily Times Singapore Free Press Straits Guardian Straits Times Singapore News Summary Chinese: China Press Chong Shin Yit Pao Jit Shin Pau Kwong Wah Yit Poh Kuo Min Yit Poh Lat Pau Nan Chiau Jit Pao Nanyang Tsung Hui Pao Nanyang Siang Pau Penang Sin Pao Sin Chew Jit PohSing Po The Sun Pao The Union Times Journals: British Malaya (Journal of the Association of British Malaya) Journal of the Malayan Branch of the Royal Asiatic Society Journal of the Indian Archipelago Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society The Straits Chinese Magazine

148

Frasers Magazine Nanyang University Journal Journal of Asian Studies Journal of Oriental Studies Journal of Southeast Asian Studies Journal of Southeast Asia History Journal of Southeast Asian History Journal of the South Seas Society Comparative Studies in Society and History Asian Studies Theses/ Articles: Abdullah Bin Abdul Kadir, Munshi (1852), ‘Concerning the Tan Tae Hoey in

Singapore,’ (trans. by T. Braddell), Journal of the Indian Archipelago, VI. Abdullah, Zarinah (1973). The British Military Administration in Singapore. Singapore:

Department of History, University of Singapore (Academic Exercise.) Akashi, Yoji (1970), ‘Japanese Policy Towards the Malayan Chinese, 1941-1945,’

Journal of Southeast Asian Studies, Vol. 1, September Issue. Chen, Michael G. P. (1987). The Criminal and Political Activities of Chinese Secret

Societies in Singapore 1945-1959. Singapore: Department of History, National University of Singapore (Academic Exercise.)

Chew, Aiman (1975). Secret Societies in Singapore: A Legal and Empirical Study.

Singapore: Faculty of Law, University of Singapore (LL.M. Thesis.) Chu, Tee Seng (1971), ‘The Singapore Chinese Protectorate, 1900-1941,’ Journal of the

South Seas Society, Vol. 26, Part I, June. Chua, Richard P. H. (1980). Police War on Gangs: A Study of the Singapore Police

Force’s Campaign against Secret Societies, 1945-1975. Singapore: Department of History, National University of Singapore (Academic Exercise.)

Gamba, Charles (1966), ‘Chinese Associations in Singapore,’ Journal of the Malaysian

Branch of the Royal Asiatic Society, Vol. 39, No. 2. Khoo, Oon Theam (1959). Chinese-Speaking Youth Clubs in Singapore. Singapore:

Department of Social Studies, University of Malaya (Academic Exercise.) Little, R., (1848), ‘On the Habitual Use of Opium in Singapore’, ‘Modes of Using

Opium’, ‘Provisions of the Opium Regulations for Singapore and Hong Kong’, Journal of the Indian Archipelago, II.

149

Louis, Margaret (1993). History of Boys’ Town. Singapore: Department of History, National University of Singapore (Academic Exercise.)

Mak, Lau Fong (1977). The Emergence and Persistence of Chinese Secret Societies in

Singapore and Peninsula Malaysia. Ottawa: National Library of Canada (PhD Thesis.)

Newbold, Lieutenant and Wilson, Major-General (1841), ‘The Chinese Secret Societies of the Tien Ti-hui,’ Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society, Vol. VI.

Ng, Siew Yoong (1961), ‘The Chinese Protectorate in Singapore, 1877-1900,’ Journal of

Southeast Asian History, Vol. II, No. 1, March Issue. Ong, Jin Hoe (1972). Secret Societies in Singapore. Singapore: Faculty of Law,

University of Singapore (Academic Exercise.) Pickering, W. A. (1876), ‘The Chinese in the Straits of Malacca,’ Frasers Magazine,

October Issue. _______, ‘Chinese Secret Societies,’ Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society (Straits

Branch), I (1878) and III (1879). Scott, James C. (1972), ‘Patron-Client Politics and Political Change in Southeast Asia,’

The American Political Science Review, Vol. 66, No. 1, March. _______ (1972), ‘The Erosion of Patron-Client Bonds and Social Change in Rural

Southeast Asia,’ Journal of Asian Studies, Vol. 32, No. 1, November. Seah, Eu Chin (1848), ‘The Chinese in Singapore,’ Journal of the Indian Archipelago, II. Tan, Kim Chia (1973). Public Housing in Singapore 1947-1970: The Work of SIT and

the HDB. Singapore: Department of History, University of Singapore (Academic Exercise.)

Tan, Tek Soon (1902), ‘Chinese Local Trade,’ The Straits Chinese Magazine, VI. Teng, S. Y. (1963), ‘Dr. Sun Yat-sen and Chinese Secret Societies,’ Studies on Asia, Vol. IV, pp. 81-99. Thio, E. (1960), ‘The Singapore Chinese Protectorate: Events and Conditions Leading to

its Establishment 1823-1877,’ Journal of the South Seas Society, XVI. Topley, M. (1961), ‘The Emergence and Social Functions of Chinese Religious

Associations in Singapore,’ Comparative Studies in Society and History, III.

150

Williams, L. (1964), ‘Chinese Leadership in Early Singapore,’ Asian Studies, Vol. 2, Part 2, August Issue.

Books: Baker, Jim (1999). Crossroads: A Popular History of Malaysia and Singapore.

Singapore: Times Books International. Ban, Kah Choon (2001). Absent History: The Untold Story of Special Branch

Operations in Singapore 1915-1942. Singapore: Horizon Books. Ban, Kah Choon; Yap, Hong Kuan (2002). Rehearsal for War: Resistance and the

Underground War against the Japanese and the Kempeitai 1942-1945. Singapore: Horizon Books.

Bianco, Lucien (2001). Peasants without the Party: Grass-roots Movements in Twentieth-Century China. Armonk: M. E. Sharpe.

Blythe, Wilfred (1969). The Impact of Chinese Secret Societies in Malaya: A Historical

Study. London: Oxford University Press. Boissevain, Jeremy (1974). Friends of Friends: Networks, Manipulators and Coalitions.

Oxford: Basil Blackwell. Bolton, Kingsley; Hutton, Christopher (eds.) (2000). Triad Societies: Western Accounts

of the History, Sociology and Linguistics of Chinese Secret Societies. London: Routledge, Taylor and Francis Group.

Booth, Martin (1990). The Triads: The Chinese Criminal Fraternity. London: Grafton. _______ (1999). The Dragon Syndicates: The Global Phenomenon of the Triads. New

York: Carroll and Graf Publishers. Buckley, Charles B. (1965). An Anecdotal History of Old Times in Singapore (1880-

1940.) Singapore: Oxford University Press. Cameron, John (1865) [1965]. Our Tropical Possessions in Malayan India [Reprint.]

Kuala Lumpur: Oxford University Press. Chan, Kwok Bun; Tong, Chee Kiong (eds.) (2003). Past Times: A Social History of

Singapore. Singapore: Times Editions. Cheah, Boon Kheng (1983). Red Star over Malaya. Singapore: Singapore University

Press.

151

Chen, Ta (1923). Chinese Migrations with Special Reference to Labour Conditions. Washington: Government Print Office.

______ (1940). Emigrant Communities in South China: A Study of Overseas Migration

and its Influence on Standard of Living and Social Change. New York: Institute of Pacific Relations.

Cheng, Lim Keak (1985). Social Change and the Chinese in Singapore: A Socio-

Economic Geography with Special Reference to Bāng Structure. Singapore: Singapore University Press.

Chesneaux, Jean (1971). Secret Societies in China in the Nineteenth and Twentieth

Centuries (trans. by Gillian Nettle.) London: Heinemann Educational Books Limited.

Chesneaux, Jean (ed.) (1972). Popular Movements and Secret Societies in China, 1840-

1950. Stanford: Stanford University Press. Chew, Ernest; Lee, Edwin (eds.) (1991). A History of Singapore. Singapore: Oxford

University Press. Chng, David K. Y. (1999). Heroic Images of Ming Loyalists: A Study of the Spirit

Tablets of the Ghee Hin Kongsi Leaders in Singapore. Singapore: Singapore Society of Asian Studies.

Chu, Yiu Kong (1999). The Triads as Business. New York: Routledge. Clutterbuck, Richard (1967). The Long Long War: The Emergency in Malaya, 1948-

1960. London: Cassell. _______ (1973). Riot and Revolution in Singapore and Malaya, 1945-1963.

London: Faber and Faber Limited. _______ (1984). Conflict and Violence in Singapore and Malaysia 1945-1983.

Singapore: Graham Brash (Pte) Limited. Comber, Leon (1957). An Introduction to Chinese Secret Societies in Malaya.

Singapore: Donald Moore Press. Comber, Leon (1959). Chinese Secret Societies in Malaya: A Survey of the Triad

Society from 1800-1900. Locust Valley: J. J. Augustin Incorporated Publisher. Cowan, C. D. (1961). Nineteenth Century Malaya: The Origins of British Control.

London: Oxford University Press. Daraul, Arkon (1983). Secret Societies: Yesterday and Today. London: Octagon.

152

Davis, Fei-Ling (1971). Primitive Revolutionaries of China: A Study of Secret Societies in the Late Nineteenth Century. Honolulu: University of Hawaii.

Donnison, F. S. V. (1956). The British Military Administration in the Far East, 1943-

1946. London: Her Majesty Stationery Office. Drysdale, John (1984). Singapore Struggle for Success. Singapore: Times Books

International. Earl, George Windsor (1837) [1971]. The Eastern Seas [Reprint.] Singapore: Oxford

University Press. Eisenstadt, S. N.; Roniger, Luis (1984). Patrons, Clients and Friends: Interpersonal

Relations and the Structure of Trust in Society. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Eisenstadt, S. N. (1995). Power, Trust and Meaning: Essays in Sociological Theory and

Analysis. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. Fitzgerald, C. P. (1972). The Southern Expansion of the Chinese People: ‘Southern

Fields and Southern Ocean.’ London: Barrie and Jenkins. Flower, Raymond (2002). The Y: First 100 Years in Singapore, 1902-2002. Singapore:

YMCA of Singapore. Freedman, Maurice (1958). Lineage Organization in Southeastern China. London:

Athlone Press.

_______ (1966). Chinese Lineage and Society: Fukien and Kwangtung. London: Athlone Press.

Hsu, Immanuel C. Y. (1975). The Rise of Modern China (2nd Ed.) New York: Oxford

University Press.

Jackson, R. N. (1965). Pickering: Protector of Chinese. Kuala Lumpur: Oxford University Press.

Keeson, John (1854). The Cross and the Dragon or the Fortunes of Christianity in China: With Notices of the Christian Missions and Missionaries and Some Account of the Chinese Secret Societies. London: Smith, Elder.

Kwa, Chong Guan (ed.) (1996). Defending Singapore, 1819-1965. Singapore:

Department of Strategic Studies, SAFTI Military Institute. Lee, Edwin (1991). The British as Rulers: Governing Multiracial Singapore, 1867-1914.

Singapore: Singapore University Press.

153

Lee, Lai To (ed.) (1988). Early Chinese Immigrant Societies: Case Studies from North America and British Southeast Asia. Singapore: Heinemann Asia.

Lee, Poh Ping (1978). Chinese Society in the 19th Century Singapore. Kuala Lumpur: Oxford University Press.

Lee, Ting Hui (1976). The Communist Organizations in Singapore: Its Techniques of

Manpower Mobilization and Management, 1948-1966. Singapore: Institute of Southeast Asian Studies.

_______ (1996). The Open United Front: The Communist Struggle in Singapore, 1954-

1966. Singapore: South Seas Society. Liddick, Donald (1996). An Empirical, Theoretical and Historical Overview of

Organized Crime. Lewiston: The Edwin Mellen Press.

Lim, Irene (1999). Secret Societies in Singapore: Featuring the William Stirling Collection. Singapore: National Heritage Board.

_______ (ed.) (2002). Chinese Triads: Perspectives on Histories, Identities and Spheres

of Impact. Singapore: Singapore History Museum. Mak, Lau Fong (1973). Forgotten and the Rejected Community – A Sociological Study

of Chinese Secret Societies in Singapore and West Malaysia. Singapore: Department of Sociology, University of Singapore.

_______ (1974). The Tripartite Relationship of Secret Societies, Police and Subscribers.

Taipei: National Taiwan University. _______ (1975). Chinese Secret Societies in Ipoh Town, 1945-1969. Singapore:

Department of Sociology, University of Singapore. _______ (1981). The Sociology of Secret Societies: A study of Chinese Secret Societies

in Singapore and Peninsula Malaysia. Kuala Lumpur: Oxford University Press.

_______ (1995). The Dynamics of Chinese Dialect Groups in Early Malaya. Singapore: Singapore: Singapore Society of Asian Studies.

McKenzie, Norman (ed.) (1967). Secret Societies. New York: Holt, Rinehart and

Winston. Moore, D. (1969). The First 150 Years of Singapore. Singapore: Donald Moore Press. Morgan, D. J. (1980). The Origins of British Aid Policy, Vol. 1. London: Maximillian

Press.

154

Murray, Dian; Qin, Baoqi (1994). The Origins of Tiandihui: The Chinese Triads in Legends and History. Stanford: Stanford University Press.

Neary, S. J.; Symes, M. S.; Brown, F. E. (eds.) (1994). The Urban Experience: A People-

Environment Perspective. London: E & FN Spon. O’Callaghan, Sean (1978). The Triads: The Mafia of the Far East. London: A Star

Book. Onraet, Rene (1947). Singapore – A Police Background. London: Dorothy Crisp &

Company. Ownby, David; Heidhues, Mary Somers (eds.) (1993). Secret Societies Reconsidered:

Perspectives on the Social History of Modern South China and Southeast Asia. Armonk: M. E. Sharpe.

Ownby, David (1996). Brotherhoods and Secret Societies in Early and Mid-Qing China:

The Formation of a Tradition. Stanford: Stanford University Press. Pan, Lynn (1990). Sons of the Yellow Emperor: The Story of the Overseas Chinese.

London: Secker and Warburg. Pearson, H. F. (1985). Singapore: A Popular History. Singapore: Times Books

International. Perry, Elizabeth (1980). Rebels and Revolutionaries in North China, 1845-1945.

Stanford: Stanford University Press. Purcell, Victor (1965). The Chinese in Southeast Asia (2nd Edition.) London: Oxford

University Press.

Rabinow, Paul (ed.) (1984). The Foucault Reader. New York: Pantheon. Roberts, J. M. (1972). The Mythology of the Secret Societies. London: Secker and

Warburg. Robinson, Mark (ed.) (1998). Corruption and Development. London: Frank Cass. Roniger, Luis; Güneş-Ayata, Ayşe (eds.) (1994). Democracy, Clientelism and Civil

Society. Boulder: Lynne Rienner Publishers. Ryan, N. J. (1969). The Making of Modern Malaysia and Singapore: A History from

Earliest Times to 1966. Kuala Lumpur: Oxford University Press. Sack, John (2001). Dragonhead: A True Story. New York: Crown Publishers.

155

Schlegel, Gustave (1866). Thian ti hwui: The Hung League or Heaven Earth League: A Secret Society with the Chinese in China and India. Batavia: Lange & Co..

Schmidt, Steffen W.; Guasti, Laura; Landé, Carl H.; Scott, James C. (eds.) (1977).

Friends, Followers & Factions: A Reader in Political Clientelism. Berkeley: University of California Press.

Shinozaki, Mamoru (1975). Syonan – My Story. Singapore: Asia Pacific Press. Singapore Police Force (1958). Chinese Secret Societies in Singapore. Singapore: CID. Song, Ong Siang (1967). One Hundred Years’ History of the Chinese in Singapore.

Singapore: University of Malaya Press. Stanton, William J. (1900). The Triad Society: or Heaven and Earth Association. Hong

Kong: Kelly & Walsh. Suryadinata, Leo (ed.) (2002). Ethnic Chinese in Singapore and Malaysia. Singapore:

Times Academic Press. Teng, Ssu-yu (1981). Protest and Crime in China: A Bibliography of Secret

Associations, Popular Uprisings, Peasant Rebellions. New York: Garland Publishers.

Tregonning, K. G. (1965). The British in Malaya: The First 40 Years, 1786-1826.

Tucson: The University of Arizona Press. Trocki, Carl (1990). Opium and Empire: Chinese Society in Colonial Singapore, 1800-

1910. Ithaca: Cornell University Press. Turnbull, C. M. (1972). The Straits Settlements 1826-1867: Indian Presidency to Crown

Colony. London: The Athlone Press. _______ (1977). A History of Singapore 1819-1975. Kuala Lumpur: Oxford University

Press. _______ (1989). A History of Singapore 1819-1988 (2nd Edition.) Singapore: Oxford

University Press. Uchida, N. (1959). The Overseas Chinese: A Bibliographical Essay Based on the

Resources of the Hoover Institution. Stanford: Stanford University Press. Vaughan, J. D. (1879) [1971]. The Manners and Customs of the Chinese of the Straits

Settlements [Reprint.] Kuala Lumpur: Oxford University Press. Wallace-Hadrill, Andrew (ed.) (1989). Patronage in Ancient Society. London:

Routledge.

156

Wang, Gungwu (1959). A Short History of the Nanyang Chinese. Singapore: Eastern

Universities Press.

Wang, Tai Peng (1994). The Origins of Chinese Kongsis. Petaling Jaya: Pelanduk Publications.

Ward, A. H. C.; Chu, Raymond W.; Salaff, Janet (eds.; translators) (1994). The Memoirs

of Tan Kah Kee. Singapore: Singapore University Press. Ward, J. S. M.; Stirling, W. G. (1973). The Hung Society, or the Society of Heaven and

Earth. New York: AMS Press.

Warren, James F. (1986). Rickshaw Coolie: A People’s History of Singapore, 1880- 1940. Singapore: Oxford University Press.

_______ (1993). Ah Ku and Karayuki-san: Prostitution in Singapore 1870-1940.

Singapore: Oxford University Press. Wolf, Eric (2001). Pathways of Power: Building an Anthropology of the Modern World.

Berkeley: University of California Press. Wong, C. S. (1963). A Gallery of Chinese Kapitans. Singapore: Ministry of Culture. Wynne, Mervyn L. (1941). Triad and Tabut: A Survey of the Origin and Diffusion of

Chinese and Mohamedan Secret Societies in the Malay Peninsula AD 1800-1935. Singapore: Government Printing House.

Yen, Ching Hwang (1976). The Overseas Chinese and the 1911 Revolution. Kuala

Lumpur: Oxford University Press. _______ (1978). Overseas Chinese Nationalism in Singapore and Malaya, 1877-1912.

Adelaide: Centre For Asian Studies. _______ (1985). Coolies and Mandarins: China’s Protection of Overseas Chinese During

the Late Ch’ing Period, 1851-1911. Singapore: Singapore University Press. _______ (1986). A Social History of the Chinese in Singapore and Malaya, 1800-1911.

Singapore: Oxford University Press. _______ (1995). Community and Politics: The Chinese in Colonial Singapore and

Malaysia. Singapore: Times Academic Press. _______ (1995). Studies in Modern Overseas Chinese History. Singapore: Times

Academic Press.

157

_______ (2002). The Ethnic Chinese in East and Southeast Asia: Business, Culture and Politics. Singapore: Times Academic Press.

Yeo, Kim Wah (1973). Political Development in Singapore, 1945-1955. Singapore:

Singapore University Press.

Yong, Ching Fatt (1987). Tan Kah Kee: The Making of an Overseas Chinese Legend. Singapore: Oxford University Press.

_______ (1992). Chinese Leadership and Power in Colonial Singapore.

Singapore: Times Academic Press. _______ (1997). The Origins of Malayan Communism. Singapore: South Seas Society. Yong, Ching Fatt; McKenna, R. B. (1990). The Kuomintang Movement in British

Malaya, 1912-1949. Singapore: Singapore University Press.