transnational migrants and the burmese buddhist temples of singapore and penang (written in 2000)
TRANSCRIPT
Transnational Migrants and the Burmese Buddhist Temples of
Singapore and Penang (written in 2000)
Michael Walter Charney
Abstract
The Burmese Buddhist Temple (BBT) abroad is the vital intermediary religious
institution for Burmese transnational migrants in host societies. But many BBTs
are increasingly challenged by the incorporation of large numbers of non-
Burmese members into their congregations. In the Singapore and the Penang
BBTs, a transnational group of Burmese Buddhist monks and, in the Singapore
BBT, transnational Burmese migrants (as well as monks), have successfully
interacted with Singapore and Malaysian Chinese in making the BBTs work for
most involved. While differences between the Burmese and Chinese do remain,
they have successfully formed a single temple community. In this process of
community formation, however, both congregations, and the monks as well,
have had to adapt to each other by adjusting their practice of Theravada
Buddhism when interacting with others within the temple.
Keywords: Transnational Migrants; ethnically bifurcated congregations;
Buddhist temples; Singapore; Burmese
Introduction
2
Whether as temples, monasteries, or meditation centres, Buddhist institutions
have long occupied an important intermediary position between the Buddhist
immigrant and the host society in the process of immigrant assimilation.
Insufficient attention has been paid, however, to the role of intermediary
Buddhist institutions among contemporary transnational migrant groups.
Transnational migrant communities exist simultaneously across national
boundaries (Kearney 1995, p. 559), in which "immigrants forge and sustain
multi-stranded social relations that link together their societies or origin and
settlement" (Basch, Glick Schiller, & Szanton Blanc 1994, p. 7). Shifting
attention from immigrant to transnational migrant groups adds a useful
perspective on migrant adaptation, as the agenda of the transnational migrant is
often very different from that of the immigrant. In the past, an immigrant's
economic success depended upon rapid assimilation, but today the success of
some migrants "depend[s] . . . on cultivating strong social networks across
national borders" (Portes, Guarnizo, & Landolt 1999, p. 229). A transnational
migrant, then, may not seek in an intermediary religious institution a means of
integrating into the host society; indeed the transnational migrant may be
indifferent to being culturally or socially assimilated into the host society at all.
This difference complicates the place, function, and membership of intermediary
religious institutions.
This article examines the negotiation of a Buddhist temple community
between two very different groups, local Chinese Buddhists and Burmese
Buddhist transnational migrants, in the Singapore and Penang Burmese Buddhist
Temples (BBT). This article will first consider Paul David Numrich's
observation of “ethnically defined parallel congregations” in immigrant Buddhist
3
temples in the United States. I will then attempt to use “ethnically bifurcated
congregations” as a model to understand and examine the Burmese and the
Chinese congregations in the Singapore and the Penang BBTs. This examination
also involves identifying how the national policies of Singapore and Malaysia
have impacted the place, function, and community of the Singapore and the
Penang BBTs, often reordering these aspects in the state's interest. This
reordering by the state explains both the existence of the ethnically bifurcated
congregations in the Singapore BBT and the disappearance of such
congregations in the Penang BBT.
Ethnically Bifurcated Congregations
An analysis of the Singapore BBT’s congregation reveals divisions along ethnic
or cultural lines. One glance at the Singapore BBT, for example, and one will
notice that Burmese are the predominant group in the temple on some days and
Singapore Chinese on other days. Certain aspects of the temple and its functions
are clearly directed to a specifically Burmese group of worshippers and others to
a Singapore Chinese group of worshippers. It would be too hasty, however, to
suggest that the Singapore BBT’s Burmese and Chinese congregations are
precisely differentiated and insular groups. Burmese and Singapore Chinese, for
example, overlap to a limited extent in their attendance and activities in the
Singapore BBT. They also participate on the same management committees
overseeing the temple. Further, ethnic lines between the Burmese and Singapore
Chinese congregations have been confused in individual cases, especially so
since Chinese immigrants from Myanmar (Burma), who are Burmese by
4
nationality but ethnically Chinese, have merged into the Singapore Chinese
congregation. Likewise, Thai Buddhist migrants have been known to participate
in Singapore BBT functions, Thai Theravada Buddhist traditions being very
closely allied to those of the Burmese.1 Generally, however, the existence of two
separate congregations within the Singapore BBT is discernible, both in the
activities of worshippers and in the approaches taken by the Burmese Buddhist
sangha (Buddhist monks) to accommodate two very different cultural groups,
those of the Burmese and the Singapore Chinese.
The phenomenon of a congregational split along ethnic or cultural lines is
not peculiar to Singapore, although it may be so for Buddhist religious
institutions. Mohamed Yusoff Ismail (1993) examined this phenomenon in a
Buddhist temple in Kelantan, Malaysia, in which the temple community
consisted of two ethnic congregations, one Thai and the other Chinese,
practicing Buddhism in different ways. Ismail found that in the temple he
examined, that while the Chinese congregation sponsors and participates in
many temple events, they were alienated to a certain degree from "the gamut of
rituals and ceremonies associated with Theravada Buddhism" (p. 74). A different
kind of ethnic division within a single Buddhist temple community has been
noticed elsewhere, such as in the Wat Buddharangsee, a Thai temple in Sydney,
Australia, in which Australian converts "come for the meditation evenings and
Asians for the festivals" (Croucher 1989, p. 99).
Numrich (1996) has similarly observed the emergence of “ethnically
defined parallel congregations” in several immigrant Buddhist temples in the
United States. Numrich explains this situation as follows: “[i]n such temples,
under one roof and through the guidance of a shared clergy, two ethnic groups
5
pursue largely separate and substantively distinct expressions of a common
religious tradition” (Numrich 1996, p. 144). This is in contrast, for example, to
the congregational integration of individuals in North American Christian
churches. Numrich further suggests that “ethnically defined parallel
congregations” may be either a new or newly emergent phenomenon in the
contemporary American religious landscape and possibly “unique to immigrant
Buddhism” (Numrich 1996, p. 144). As in the case of the Thai temple in Sydney,
Numrich’s “other” congregation in the immigrant Buddhist temples he studied
were westerners, North American converts to Theravada Buddhism. This factor
complicates the application of Numrich’s “ethnically defined parallel
congregations” to the Singapore and Penang BBTs. As converts, for example,
North Americans (and Australians) may join Buddhist temples for reasons
entirely peculiar to the West, such as the religious tolerance and experimentation
made popular in western postwar culture, especially from the 1960s. Although
the Singapore and Penang BBT congregations do appear to be “ethnically
defined parallel congregations,” the “other” congregation in these cases consists
of Chinese who are not converts to Theravada Buddhism, but who often carry
Theravada Buddhism with them into the BBTs. As a result, Numrich’s paradigm
must be applied cautiously to the Singapore and Penang BBTs. In this article, I
will use a several terms that should be first defined here. First, I have opted to
use "ethnically bifurcated congregations" in lieu of Numrich's accurate but more
cumbersome "ethnically defined parallel congregations."
What appear to be ethnically bifurcated congregations have also emerged
in immigrant Buddhist temples in contemporary Singapore and apparently in
Penang (though in an earlier period) as well. For a variety of reasons that I will
6
discuss more fully below, the ethnic split in Buddhist congregations is much
more evident in the Singapore Burmese Buddhist Temple (BBT), officially
entitled the Sasanaramsi Burmese Buddhist Temple, than in its Penang
counterpart, at least today. The Penang BBT, officially entitled the
Dhammikirama Burmese Buddhist Temple, shares much in common with its
younger counterpart in Singapore (the Penang and the Singapore BBTs were
founded in 1803 and 1878, respectively). Like the Singapore BBT, for example,
the Penang BBT was originally built for the religious purposes of a Burmese
migrant community and, even today, the Theravada Buddhist monks whom the
temple community supports have been drawn from Burma. Further, throughout
much of its history, the Penang BBT had both Burmese and Straits Chinese in its
congregation, probably along the lines of ethnically bifurcated congregations.
Today, however, the Penang BBT’s community consists of a single Malaysian
Chinese congregation, with occasional visitors from Burma. This latter
development, however, is almost largely attributable to changes in the Malaysian
economy since the 1960s, and many of these changes had been state-directed, as
I will explain more fully below. For the moment, the contemporary absence of a
significant or sustained Burmese congregation in the Penang BBT, helps to make
certain aspects of the Singapore BBT both clearer and more significant.
Burmese Congregation
The Burmese in the Singapore BBT share a sense of belonging to a transnational
migrant community that accepts national identities (in this case, Burmese) and
stresses real and imagined interactions with the national homeland (Myanmar).
7
The Singapore BBT, for example, is very careful to stress that the monks of the
temple and monastery of Singapore come from Burma. The print literature of the
Singapore BBT also keeps the community abreast of recent religious
developments and activities in Burma. In June 1999, for example, the upcoming
December 1999 opening ceremony for the Mahasantisukha Temple in Yangon
was advertised and the Singapore temple organized a week-long pilgrimage tour
to Burma for the event (Singapore BBTN June 1999, p. 9; Singapore BBTN
December 1999, p. 3).
In addition to a sense of identity tied to Burma, however, the members of
the Burmese congregation of the Singapore BBT intimate a sense of belonging
to a diasporic Burmese Buddhist community (I emphasize both Burmese and
Buddhist here) that transcends both Burma and the Straits. One Burmese
Buddhist has proudly explained to me that BBTs were located in increasingly
far-flung places: now there were BBTs in Australia and the United States, not
just in Penang and Singapore (or Burma). The published literature of the
Singapore BBT, most importantly The Singapore Burmese Buddhist Temple
Newsletter, keeps the temple community abreast of current developments in
Burmese Buddhist monasteries and temples abroad. This includes articles
providing a detailed account and history of the Penang BBT (Singapore BBTN
1992, p. 7), the history of the struggles of the Burmese Buddhist monastery in
Sravasti, India (Singapore BBTN February 1994), the history of the monks of
the Sigara, Varanasi Burmese Buddhist monastery in India (Singapore BBTN
June 1997, pp. 4-5), and, most recently, an account of another BBT that has been
built in Patna, Bihar State, India (Singapore BBTN 1 June 1999, p. 4). Word of
mouth is also important in spreading news on developments among the BBTs in
8
other countries. One informant noted the rapidity of the spread of BBTs in the
United States, but also happily informed me that another BBT has recently
opened in Malaysia, this time in Kuala Lumpur.
The Burmese monks in the Singapore and Penang BBTs form another
facet of the Burmese Buddhist diaspora and together provide a constant
institutional reminder to the Burmese (and in a different sense to the Chinese)
that they are part of a global diaspora. The monks of both the Singapore BBT
and the Penang BBT, for example, belong to the International Burmese Buddhist
Sangha Organisation (IBBSO) established at a meeting held in Penang in 1985
by thirteen Burmese Buddhist monks from seven countries (Penang BBT 1992,
p. 73). The IBBSO is a transnational religious organization that holds together
Burmese Buddhist temples and monks across many national boundaries, not
only in Southeast Asia and North America, but also in India, Japan, and a host of
other countries. Many of these monks have lived outside of Burma for as long as
fifty years (Penang BBT 1992, p. 73). These monks have also faced many of the
same challenges as the members of their Burmese congregations. As one
informant related to me, Malaysian restrictions on immigration have made it
difficult for any Burmese, even monks, to live in Penang. Thus, even the
Burmese Buddhist monks who service the Penang BBT are only able to do so
because they possess U.S. passports. Many of the Burmese monks have had to
live abroad in the United States and elsewhere for five or more years in order to
get foreign passports and the freedom to travel.
The Singapore BBT is given a special place within this Burmese
Buddhist global diaspora. The Singapore BBT, for example, claims that it is the
“first and only Burmese Buddhist Temple built outside of Burma (Myanmar) in
9
the traditional style appropriately adapted to local conditions” and includes this
claim in its public representations. As an “authentic Burmese Buddhist temple,”
the Singapore BBT offers to Burmese transnational migrants a unique
connection with home. This authenticity conjoined with other means of raising
the Singapore BBT’s status relative to other Burmese religious centres, the
community claiming that the temple possesses the “biggest [Buddha image]
enshrined outside of Burma.” The temple’s touted adaptation to local conditions
implies a shared condition with the Burmese transnational migrants who form its
community. The image of membership in a global religious enterprise is also
constantly invoked in temple speeches, advertisements, commentaries, histories,
and other publications.
Whether a transnational community or as a part of the Burmese Buddhist
diaspora, the Singapore BBT’s Burmese congregation’s identity as a migrant
community is reflected in representational art in the temple. The mural painting
above the lintel on the inside of the third floor of the Singapore BBT, for
example, can easily be interpreted as a metaphor for the Burmese migrants who
visit the temple and for whom, given the location of the mural, the mural's
consumption is directed. This mural portrays the history of the migration of the
temple's central Buddha image from Sagyin hill north of Mandalay in Myanmar.
A range of scenes from this migration is displayed in chronological order: 1915,
workman are forming the image on Sagyin Hill north of Mandalay; 1916, the
image is pulled on a log-platform on log rollers by oxen to Mandalay; 1917, the
image is moved to Rangoon by train and then to Mergui by elephants; and
finally in 1918, a boat carries the image out of Myanmar to Singapore. A
different series of scenes then follows: in 1918, the image is set-up in a house,
10
1932 it is placed in a larger scale temple; and in 1988 it was finally moved to the
new Singapore BBT site at Tai Gin Road. The third range of scenes focuses
upon the temple itself from this point: the erection of the temple for the image in
1991; the erection of a larger standing Buddha on the third floor in 1992, and the
erection of a stupa above the pagoda in 1993.2 The story of the Burmese
Buddhist migrant and the migration experience from Myanmar to Singapore,
then, is replayed through the movement of the image, associating the Buddha
with transnational migration and the difficulties of building lives in new
societies (Charney 2000a; Charney 2000b).
The mural story, described above, contrasts with another simpler account
written into the introduction to the temple. In this account, U Kyaw Gaung, a
Burmese traditional medicine practitioner living in Myanmar, bought marble
from Sagyin Hill and it was cut into an image at Mandalay in 1918. The Buddha
image was then brought to Singapore in 1921 (Charney 2000a; Charney 2000b).
This is a more direct version of the origin of the central Buddha image of the
Singapore BBT. This second account does not dwell on the journey of the
Burmese Buddhist image (understandable also as the journey of the Burmese
Buddhist members of the temple), nor does it stress the same sense of distance
from Myanmar. Furthermore, this second account does not stress the search for a
place in Singapore for the Buddha image, as does the first account. While the
more detailed and migration-focused mural display is intended for the
consumption of the Burmese congregation, the simpler story appears to be
intended for the consumption of the Chinese congregation of the temple.
There are few representations of migration from Myanmar, however, in
the Penang BBT. At one time, the Penang BBT involved both Burmese and
11
Singapore worshippers, although it is difficult to ascertain whether or not they
formed ethnically bifurcated congregations. Today, however there is only a
single Malaysian Chinese congregation, largely due to the activities of the
nation-state of Malaysia and Malaysia- and Singapore-sparked transitions in the
economy of the Straits of Melaka. One of the most important reasons is that
Malaysia maintains fairly severe restrictions of labor immigration, applicable to
countries of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) as well as to
other labor-exporting areas. According to one informant, for example, it is
extremely difficult for Burmese to migrate to Malaysia, and so very few ever go
to Penang. There are thus no significant numbers of new Burmese immigrants to
Penang. Meanwhile, Penang's local Burmese population was steadily absorbed
throughout the twentieth century. By 1956, only twenty-five residents in Penang
still claimed to be Burmese and of these, few could even speak Burmese
(McDougall 1956, p. 44).
Other factors are involved as well. In the late nineteenth century,
Singapore generally eclipsed Penang’s place as the most important trading
entrepot in the Straits of Melaka. Even then, Penang remained important
throughout much of the twentieth century as a tertiary trading port, visited by
significant numbers of Burmese merchant mariners and traders up through the
1970s. Malaysian Prime Minister Dato Seri Dr Mahathir Mohamad’s decision in
the 1980s to revoke Penang’s free port status in favor of Langkawi -- a port in
Mahathir’s home province -- helped to reduce the presence of Burmese in
Penang. This reduction was reinforced by Singapore’s accelerated growth both
as an international free trade port and as an employer of large numbers of Asian
hard laborers. One significant portion of the Burmese portion of the Penang BBT
12
was lost. The local Burmese, who only numbered in the hundreds in the late
nineteenth century, appear to have either moved on or intermarried with the
Chinese Buddhist population. In any event, the overwhelming proportion of
worshippers at Penang's BBT are Chinese Buddhists. The Thai Buddhist temple
across the street has continued to thrive and to offer a place of worship for Thai-
and many other Buddhists.
Chinese Congregation
While the contemporary absence of a significant Burmese congregation in the
Penang BBT helps to explain the Chinese cultural orientation of the
congregation in the Penang BBT, the reasons for the strong Chinese influence in
the Singapore BBT are complex. The emergence of the nation-state in Singapore
led to legislation that attempted to reduce the autonomy of cultural and religious
groups and to bring them under the influence of state cultural, religious, and
social projects. The Singapore BBT is subject to the rules and regulations of
Singapore’s Societies Act of 1966 and its amended provisions. The Societies Act
requires the registration of a secular management committee to oversee and act
as intermediaries for any association of ten people or more, religious or
otherwise. As an association of more than ten people, the Singapore BBT has to
be registered with the government. Members of the temple’s management
committee must be Singaporean citizens or permanent residents (NG 1997, p.
27). Thus, members of the management committee are almost always ethnic
Chinese, the majority population of Singapore. The management committee
consists of a president, two vice-presidents, a secretary, a treasurer, two assistant
13
treasurers, an auditor, and a six-member executive committee, mostly
Singaporean Chinese, with a few Burmese in lower-ranking positions (Singapore
BBTN June 1997, p. 11). As a result, Singapore government regulations have
indirectly determined that the Singapore BBT is a joint Chinese-Burmese
religious enterprise under Chinese management.
Accelerated urbanization in Singapore, and concomitant extensive urban
planning, due to tremendous economic growth in the last three decades is also
indirectly responsible for increasing Chinese influence in the Singapore BBT.
Many immigrant Buddhist temples and monasteries, for example, must start off
in private residences, largely due to the initial embryonic size of the temple
community and the limited availability of funds. This was the case for the
Singapore BBT for much of its history, as the Singapore BBT was located in a
private home since 1878. Starting off in residential homes is also true today for
the suburban Chicago BBT that I visited several times in 1995 and 1996 and for
a new Kuala Lumpur BBT that I have been told has just opened in Malaysia.
Stricter enforcement of zoning regulations that accompany increasing
urbanization creates continual problems for BBTs and other Buddhist temples in
Australia (Croucher 1989, p. 104). This has also been true for the Singapore
BBT and this problem has also led to additional dependence of the temple upon
its Singapore Chinese congregation. In 1981, the national Housing Development
Board rezoned the Singapore BBT’s land for development, which required the
temple to lease new land elsewhere thirty-year limited-term basis (NG 1997, pp.
19, 21-22, 81).3 According to one informant, according to government
regulations, all moneys collected for projects such as that of the BBT must be
derived from Singapore sources. Given the limited resources and transitory
14
status of many in the Burmese congregation, these moneys had to be collected in
large part from the Chinese congregation of the BBT. Thus, like the formation of
a secular management committee, this requirement encouraged greater reliance
on the Singapore Chinese congregation in the BBT. Despite the bringing
together of Chinese and Burmese Buddhists in the Singapore BBT, the two
groups have remained essentially distinct.
The Singapore Chinese congregation is dominant in many Singapore
BBT activities, especially during the new and the full moon. The Chinese, for
example, are present in large numbers at the temple on Vesak day, “the May
full-moon celebration of the three events of the Buddha’s life -- birth,
enlightenment, and parinibbana” (Numrich 1996; Spiro 1971, p. 221). This is not
surprising. Vesak day is the most sacred of Buddhist holidays among all
Theravada Buddhists (Swearer 1995, pp. 40-4; Numrich 1996, p. 89). This is in
stark contrast to the Kathin (Kathina in Pali) ceremony. Kathin is the robe-giving
ceremony held during a one-month period in October (and sometimes into
November), when monks return from their ascetic retreat during the monsoon
season. By giving the monks robes and providing other monastic requisites,
donors gain merit (Spiro 1971, pp. 226-7; Ismail 1993, p. 102-118). In the
Singapore BBT, this festival is dominated by the Burmese congregation, many
of whom spent time in Burmese Buddhist monasteries as novices when they
were children, and the Singapore Chinese are less conspicuous.
Some peculiarly Chinese cultural activities are also presently
incorporated into temple events and celebrations. During Chinese New Year, for
example, special lanterns supplied by the Chinese congregation are lit up in the
temple for one month, two weeks before the first day of the Lunar New Year and
15
for two weeks thereafter. At 11:30 p.m., on the eve of Chinese New Year, a
blessing ceremony, including midnight chanting, is conducted at the temple.
Mandarin oranges and ang pows (red packets) are distributed to the large number
of people who have attended the service (Singapore BBTN June 1997, p. 7;
Singapore BBTN June 1999, p. 10). During my visit to the Singapore BBT on
the first day of Chinese New Year, the first and second floors of the temple were
strung with red lanterns, each bearing a Chinese surname, representing the
family that had donated the lantern. Chinese members of the temple seeking
New Year’s blessings from the Buddhist monks predominantly peopled these
two floors, but especially the first floor. The central Buddha image on the main
floor was also fronted with numerous boxes and crates of donated mandarin
oranges. On the third floor, where red lanterns and oranges were absent, I found
only Burmese coming and going, paying homage to the Buddha.
Chinese influence affects temple functioning in other ways. Although
both Burmese and Chinese teach the Dhamma and Buddhism classes, Chinese
teachers predominate. Out of five weekly classes conducted in 1997, three were
conducted by Chinese teachers, including the “Introduction to Buddhism”
course, held on Saturday afternoons. Dhamma students are trained to pass the
Dhamma examination established by the Malaysian Buddhist Examination
Syndicate, a largely Malaysian-Chinese body, and not be a Burmese Dhamma
examination board (Singapore BBTN June 1997, p. 7). Donations made at
temple functions have also been directed toward essentially Singaporean Chinese
Buddhist charities.4
Both the Burmese and the Singapore Chinese in the Singapore BBT
follow the Theravada school of the Buddha’s teachings (most Chinese Buddhists
16
per se, however, are Mahayanist). The presence of Singapore Chinese alongside
Burmese Buddhists in the temple, however, has required the Burmese Buddhist
monks to modify their practice of the Vinaya (the rules ordering a monk’s
behavior). The monks in the Singapore and the Penang BBTs are Burmese
Theravada Buddhist monks from Myanmar. Informants have suggested that
although these monks, being Burmese-speakers, make a sincere effort to explain
the teachings of Buddhism in English and some learn a little Mandarin or
Chinese dialects to interact with Singapore and Malaysian Chinese members of
the temples, there is some difficulty in their translation. Accommodations,
including keeping the teachings at a mutually intelligible level, must be made.
The Chinese and Burmese have also comprised over the “shoe question.” In the
Yunnanese, Gwangdong, and Fukien Chinese Buddhist temples I have visited in
Mandalay and Yangon, one does not have to remove one’s shoes, even within
the temple itself. By contrast, in all of the Burmese Buddhist temples and
monasteries I have visited in Burma, one has to remove one’s shoes even before
entering the outside compound of the temple or monastery, as a sign of respect
for the Buddha. In the Singapore and Penang BBTs, however, one can wear
shoes into the compound, but they must be removed at the steps of the temple
proper.
A more important difference between the two congregations regards the
temple manners of Singapore and Malaysian Chinese women in the Singapore
and Penang BBTs. In Myanmar, for example, women are not supposed to touch
the monks, hand things to them, or talk to them directly. In the Singapore and
Penang BBTs, however, many Chinese women do all these things, especially in
receiving blessings from the monks. During my visit to the Singapore BBT on
17
Chinese New Year, for example, at least one young Chinese woman was dressed
in clothing that would certainly have been considered inappropriate for visits to
BBTs in Myanmar (one concern being to avoid tempting the monks who are
under vows of celibacy). As one informant explained to me, just as the local
(Chinese) Buddhists must make adjustments for Burmese monks, Burmese
monks have to make some adjustments for local (Chinese) Buddhists if the
Singapore and Malaysian BBTs are to work for everyone.
The Chinese congregation in the Singapore BBT has made efforts to
adapt to the Burmese orientation of the monks and the Burmese congregation on
the other side of the temple community. These efforts include participating in the
more Burmese cultural aspects of Burmese Buddhism observed in the Singapore
BBT. Thingyan (Burmese New Year), for example, is held for three (sometimes
four) days in April. Although Thingyan is not a Buddhist festival per se, it is an
important Burmese cultural event that has become Buddhicized (Spiro 1971, p.
220). At the center of Thingyan is Thagyamin (Indra) who, in Burmese
Buddhism, is both the king of the nats (spirits) and the protector of the sasana
(Buddhist religion). The first two days of Thingyan are the last two days of the
previous year. During these two days Thagyamin descends to earth and makes
two lists, one for good people and the other for those who have acted badly. On
the third day of Thingyan, the first day of the New Year, Thagyamin ascends
back to Tavatimsa heaven (Spiro 1971, p. 220; Swearer 1995, pp. 36-40;
Singapore BBTN 1997, p. 10). The New Year celebrations include a water
festival, observed throughout South and Southeast Asia. During this time, the
young bathe the heads of the elderly and offer them pots of water; while
splashing water on others, cleaning away the “dirt” of the previous year (Spiro
18
1971, p. 221). Although Thingyan, including the water festival, is Burmese or
Southeast Asian and not Theravada Buddhist per se, it is becoming a part of the
activities of the whole Singapore BBT community. According to a Chinese
informant in the temple, this clearly Burmese cultural event is now attracting the
participation of the Chinese congregation to the temple.
One of the most reliable indicators of whom a temple community
includes in its real and perceived membership is at least a token inclusion of the
scripted languages of its members in temple representations and printed
literature (it should be noted that the Burmese monks read Pali in Burmese
script). The Singapore BBT, for example, utilizes a inclusive tripartite language
strategy, issuing materials in three languages -- Burmese, Chinese, and English -
- accessible to both congregations in the temple community. Most Singapore
BBT publications, for example, include items or versions of information in
Burmese, English, and Chinese. This helps readers of these languages by making
them feel included in the temple community, and not peripheral to particular
language groups. Although the library in the temple contains mainly Burmese-
(which most Chinese in the temple cannot read) and English-language books, it
does contain a most number of Chinese-language books (although these were so
few that some in the temple had forgotten that these were there). Even then, the
English language materials appear to be intended for the Singaporean Chinese
congregation, as most Singaporean Chinese are able to access English-language
materials. The Penang BBT may have shared, at one time, the Singapore BBT’s
inclusive tripartite language strategy. Today, however, the absence of a sustained
Burmese congregation in the Penang BBT has led to the absence of Burmese
versions of the English and Chinese text in the Penang BBT’s publications
19
(Penang BBT 1999a; Penang BBT 1999b; Penang BBT n.d.). A Pali chanting
guide is also made available to worshippers, utilizing Romanized Pali
accompanied by English translation (Pannya Vamsa, n.d.). The Burmese-
language and Burmese-enscripted Pali materials that are available in the Penang
BBT are meant for the use of the Burmese monks, and are not distributed to the
general Penang BBT congregation.
There are certain obvious benefits for the Burmese congregation in
sharing "their" Singapore BBT with the Singapore Chinese congregation and
these benefits should not be overlooked here. For one thing, the Chinese
congregation provides a good deal of the funds that keeps the Singapore BBT
going. It is not a cheap affair, and the costs of the original construction of the
temple, the grounds, and their continual upkeep are in addition to the costs of
maintaining a number of Theravada Buddhist monks in the attached monastery.
The members of the Singapore Chinese congregation also present potentially
useful social capital for the Burmese congregation, many of whom have few
connections with government authorities or prosperous Chinese business leaders.
At the very least, valuable aid is potentially available in matters that threaten
their shared temple. Furthermore, as I will discuss more fully below, the
Burmese congregation needs local Singapore Chinese to serve on its
management committees, as per government regulations.
One cannot ignore the usefulness for Malaysia and Singapore of the
Penang and Singapore BBTs, respectively, in the cultivation of the image of
popular ASEAN bonds by Malaysia, Singapore, and Myanmar, the three nation-
states most concerned with the BBTs now under examination. Important
Myanmar leaders and officials in recent years include public appearances at BBT
20
functions, which then become important media events, as part of their state visits
to Singapore and Malaysia. On 12 August 1996, during a state visit to Malaysia
at the invitation of Yang di-Pertuan Agong Tuanka Jaafar, Senior-General Than
Shwe, Chairman of Myanmar’s governing State Law and Order Restoration
Council (SLORC), and Secretary of SLORC, Lt. General Khin Nyunt, made a
high profile visit to the Penang BBT, presenting a Buddha image and making
other donations (Penang BBT 1996b, p. 70). Likewise, delegations of Burmese
and Singapore Chinese from the Singapore BBT (Singapore BBTN 1997, p. 12)
and Malaysian Chinese from the Penang BBT to Myanmar serve, again, as
important media events in the hype over ASEAN solidarity. One such
delegation of sixty members of the temple community led by two of the temple's
monks went to Burma in 1996 to represent the Singapore BBT at the grand
opening of a new vihara (temple) in Yangon (Singapore BBTN 1997, p. 9).
Conclusion
This site is pregnant with research potential, especially so as it represents a
contact point on the overlap of Southeast and East Asia and thus encourages
reconsidering how we think about and divide the two regions (Liu 2000). So too,
and this is where this article is chiefly concerned, this site also encourages
reconsidering how we think about intermediary Buddhist institutions and the role
they play in the relationship between host and migrant. This relationship, as I
have explained, has produced a generally workable temple community divided in
some ways along ethnic lines, but with signs of increasing acceptance and
sharing that cross these boundaries. In the Singapore and the Penang BBTs, a
21
transnational group of Burmese Buddhist monks, and in the Singapore BBT,
transnational Burmese migrants (as well as monks), have successfully interacted
with Singapore and Malaysian Chinese in making the BBTs work for most
involved. While differences between the Burmese and Chinese do exist,
ethnically bifurcated congregations do not rule out a single temple community.
Indeed, in the BBTs I examined and in the Thai temple examined by Ismail in
Kelantan, members in the split congregations still saw themselves as one temple
community (Ismail 1993, p. 74).
This case study also suggests that Chinese integration into Thai and
Burmese Theravada Buddhist temple communities is not due entirely to the
flexibility of Chinese religious beliefs. In the process of community formation in
my case study, both congregations, and the Burmese Buddhist monks as well,
have had to adapt to each other by adjusting their practice of Buddhism when
interacting with others within the temple, although the may retain stricter
standards in their personal observance of the tenets of Theravada Buddhism.
This may represent a broader phenomenon, as Ismail has also found the same
tolerance to Chinese cultural and religious (Mahayana Buddhist) beliefs and
practices in the Thai Buddhist temple in Kelantan, including the incorporation
into the temple of specifically Chinese deities such as the goddess Kuan Yin
(Ismael 1993, p. 7). The tolerance, flexibility, and adaptability of Thai and
Burmese Theravada Buddhist temples also helps to explain the emergence of
ethnically bifurcated congregations in Thai temples in Australia and North
America. This tolerance and acceptance of non-Thais and non-Burmese, who are
often less agile in their observance of the practices and rituals of Theravada
Buddhism than are Thai and Burmese migrants, may suggest that Southeast
22
Asian cultural norms, as reflected in their expression and observance of
Buddhism (ethnic Buddhism), may be one explanation for the existence of
ethnically bifurcated congregations. In Japanese immigrant Buddhist temples in
the United States, for example, it does not appear that ethnically bifurcated
congregations have been long-lived, when they have appeared at all (Numrich
1996, pp. 144-45).
But not all Burmese are happy with the adjustments required by the
sharing of the temple by two ethnically differentiated congregations. According
to one informant, for example, some Burmese have abandoned the Singapore
BBT for two reasons. First, some Burmese are unsatisfied with the faithfulness
of the temple to orthodox Theravada Burmese Buddhist practices, due less rigid
standards in an effort by the temple to incorporate the Chinese. Second, some
Burmese are unhappy with modifications in temple meditation culture, including
the incorporation of Chinese cultural events in temple observances. As a result,
part of the Burmese congregation of the Singapore BBT have ‘migrated’ to
other, though newer, Burmese Buddhist religious centres in Singapore, such as
the Vipassana Meditation Centre. During my visit to the Vipassana Meditation
Centre in 1999, I observed that while the latter incorporates both Burmese and
Chinese worshippers, its congregation focuses more on the meditative side of
Theravada Buddhism and is much more austere than the Singapore BBT temple
and grounds.
The nation-state in Singapore has successfully, but indirectly, managed
transnational linkages and migrants associated with the BBT. This indirect state
management has both reinforced the influence and strength of the state and has
influenced the place of the BBT and the interaction of its Burmese congregation
23
with the host society. In Malaysia, the (at least partly) state-sponsored changes in
the regional economy and national policy have affected the Penang BBT in
different ways. In some ways, the Burmese and Singapore Chinese
congregations in the Singapore BBT and the Malaysian Chinese congregation in
the Penang BBT have benefited from state efforts. Burmese migrants, for
example, benefit from the availability of a Burmese Buddhist Temple in
Singapore, and the size and range of temple activities is largely due to the
participation of, and funding by, Singapore Chinese. Malaysian and Singapore
Chinese benefit from state-prompted developments, as they have become valued
members of the temple community, for otherwise they would be outsiders
relative to a Burmese Buddhist community.
What directions for the future? At present, all indications are that
“ethnically defined parallel congregations will continue to characterize the
Singapore BBT. Much of this, of course, hinges on the continued economic
success of Singapore. Structural changes in the regional economy could threaten
the continued presence of the Burmese congregation in the temple. Malaysia’s
efforts to push local Malaysian ports to compete with Singapore’s entrepot
activities (Navaratnam 1999, p. 89), for example, could easily redirect
Myanmar’s share of shipping away from Singapore, depriving the temple of one
element of Burmese worshippers. A slowdown in the Singaporean economy, not
unreasonable given the recent indications of an economic slowdown in the
United States, could spark concerns among Singaporeans that foreign labor that
foreigners are competing for their jobs. Given that many Burmese worshippers
are middle-class professionals on renewable contracts, a shift in government
labor policy could remove the most stable and active members of the Burmese
24
congregation of the Singapore BBT. Should any of these scenarios be realized, it
does not seem unreasonable to expect the Singaporean temple to become very
much like its Penang counterpart.
Acknowledgments
I would like to thank S. M. A. K. Fakhri of the National University of Singapore
and Atsuko Naono of the University of Michigan for their comments, and the
Institute of Southeast Asian Studies for access to their library resources.
References
ANDERSON, BENEDICT 1983 Imagined Communities: Reflections on the
Origin and Spread of Nationalism, Revised ed. London: Verso Press
BASCH, LINDA, GLICK SCHILLER, NINA, & SZANTON BLANC,
CRISTINA 1994 Nations Unbound: Transnational Projects,
Postcolonial Predicaments, and Deterritorialized Nation-States,
Langhorne, Pennsylvania: Gordon and Breach
CHARNEY, MICHAEL WALTER 1997 'The Burmese', in Levinson & Ember
1997, pp. 115-118.
________ 1999a ‘Problematics and Paradigms in Historicizing the Overseas
Chinese in the Nineteenth- and Twentieth-century Straits and Burma’,
Journal of the South Seas Society vol. 54, pp. 93-106
________ 2000a 'Chinese and Burmese in Singapore's 'Burmese' Buddhist
Temple: Reconsidering Two Migrant Groups in the Straits and Burma',
25
paper presented at the Conference on Transnational Communities in the
Asia-Pacific Region, Singapore, August 7-8
________ 2000b ‘Surviving the Global(izing) City: Transnational Migrants and
Community Formation in and Singapore’, paper presented at the Asian
Studies Association of Australia, Melbourne, July 6
CROUCHER, PAUL 1989 Buddhism in Australia 1848-1988, Kensington,
Australia: New South Wales University Press
DHAMMIKIRAMA BURMESE BUDDHIST TEMPLE. See PENANG BBT
EADE, JOHN (ed.) 1997 Living the Global City: Globalization as a Local
Process, London: Routledge
ISMAIL, MOHAMED YUSOFF 1993 Buddhism and Ethnicity: Social
Organization of a Buddhist Temple in Kelantan, Singapore: Institute of
Southeast Asian Studies
KEARNY, MICHAEL 1995 ‘The Local and the Global: The Anthropology of
Globalization and Transnationalism’, Annual Review of Anthropology
vol. 24, pp. 547-65
KING, ANTHONY D. (ed.) 1991 Culture, Globalization and the World System:
Contemporary Conditions for the Representation of Identity, New York:
MacMillan
LEVINSON, DAVID & EMBER, MELVIN 1997 American Immigrant
Cultures: Builders of a Nation, volume 1 New York: Simon & Schuster
MacMillan
LIE, JOHN 1995 ‘From International Migration to Transnational Diaspora’,
Contemporary Sociology vol. 24, pp. 303-306
26
LIU, HONG 2000 ‘Sino-Southeast Asian Studies: Toward a New Analytical
Paradigm’, paper presented at the ‘Approaching Asia from Asia’
Workshop, Sariska, India, 20-22 February 2000
MCDOUGALL, COLIN 1956 Buddhism in Malaya, Singapore: Donald Moore
MCKEOWN, ADAM 1999 ‘Conceptualizing Chinese Diasporas, 1842 to 1949’,
Journal of Asian Studies vol. 58, no. 2, pp. 306-337
NAVARATNAM, RAMON V 1999 Healing the Wounded Tiger: How Turmoil
In Reshaping Malaysia, Selangor Darul Ehsan, Malaysia: Pelanduk
NG, KEVIN PEK KEE 1997 ‘Change and Persistence: A Case Study of the
Burmese Buddhist Temple in Singapore’, unpublished thesis. Singapore:
National University of Singapore
NUMRICH, PAUL DAVID 1996 Old Wisdom in the New World:
Americanization in Two Immigrant Theravada Buddhist Temples,
Knoxville: University of Tennessee Press
ONCU, AYSE & WEYLAND, PETRA (eds.) 1997 Space, Culture and Power:
New Identities in Globalizing Cities, London: Zed Books
ONG, AIHWA 1999 Flexible Citizenship: The Cultural Logics of
Transnationality, Durham: Duke University Press
PANNYA VAMSA, U N.d. Dhammikirama Abhidhamma Pali Chanting,
Penang: Dhammikirama Burmese Buddhist Temple
PENANG BBT [Dhammikirama Burmese Buddhist Temple] 1992 History of the
Dhammikirama Burmese Buddhist Temple Penang, Malaysia B.E. 2347-
2535 A.D. 1803-1991, Penang: Dhammikirama Burmese Buddhist
Temple
27
________ 1996a The Chronicle Pictorial of Dhammikirama Burmese Buddhist
Temple Penang, Penang: Dhammikirama Burmese Buddhist Temple
________ 1996b 1996 Triple Happiness of Dhammikirama Burmese Buddhist
Temple Penang, Penang: Dhammikirama Burmese Buddhist Temple
________ 1999a ‘Invitation to the Union Kathina Celebration 6th & 7th
November 1999’, flier, Penang: Dhammikirama Burmese Buddhist
Temple
________ 1996b The Literal Teaching of the Buddha, Penang: Dhammikirama
Burmese Buddhist Temple
________ N.d. Untitled brochure describing the outlay and major events of the
Penang BBT
PORTES, ALEJANDRO, GUARNIZO, LUIS E., & LANDOLT, PATRICIA
1999 'The Study of Transnationalism: Pitfalls and Promise of an
Emergent Research Field', Ethnic and Racial Studies vol. 22, no. 2:
March 1999
SINGAPORE BBTN 1992-2000 Burmese Buddhist Temple Newsletter,
Singapore: Burmese Buddhist Temple
SPIRO, MELFORD E. 1971 Buddhism and Society: A Great Tradition and Its
Burmese Vicissitudes, London: George Allen & Unwin
SWEARER, DONALD K. 1995 The Buddhist World of Southeast Asia, New
York: State University of New York Press
VERTOVEC, STEVEN 1997 ‘Three Meanings of 'Diaspora' Exemplified among
South Asian Religions’, Diaspora vol. 6, no. 3, pp. 277-299
28
MICHAEL WALTER CHARNEY is a Postdoctoral Fellow in the Cen
tre for Advanced Studies at the National University of Singapore.
ADDRESS: Centre for Advanced Studies, National University of Singapore, 10
Kent Ridge Crescent, Singapore 119260, Republic of Singapore.
1 During a visit to the Singapore BBT, I even found a large Thai-style Buddha image donated to
the temple by the Thai king, Rama VI on the temple’s second floor.
2 This information derived from a personal visit to the temple in June 2000.
3 This event was confirmed by Atsuko Naono for the author from the Chinese-language
chronology provided in the Singapore BBTN.
4 Ten thousand Singapore dollars were donated to charities at the Fifth Anniversary celebration
held on 29 December 1996. Aside from two thousand Singapore dollars made out to the
community chest and a similar amount donated to the Pali College (Mangala Vihara), the
remainder went to predominantly Singapore Chinese Buddhist charities. Two thousand dollars
went to the Buddhist societies of the National University of Singapore, Nanyang Technological
University, Ngee Ann Polytechnic, and Singapore Polytechnic. One thousand dollars went to the
Thye Hua Kwan Moral Society. One thousand dollars went to the Ren Ci Hospital. The
remaining two thousand went to the Society for the Aged Sick, the Shan You Counseling Centre,
and the For You Information (Singapore BBTN, June 1997, p. 7).