^{page 33 note 1} Dr. Lim Boon Keng's conversion to Confucianism is discussed later in this article.

^{page 33 note 2} In the regulations of the Shanghai Ch'iang-hsüeh hui (Society for the Study of National Strengthening) drafted by K'ang Yu-wei in 1895, lecture halls were to be erected to preach Confucianism. shih-hsüeh hui, Chung-kuo (ed.), Wu-hsüpien-fa (The Reform of 1898) (WHPF) (Shanghai 1953), Vol. 4, p. 391Google Scholar.

^{page 33 note 3} The Society, ‘Sheng-hsüeh hui’ was founded by Yu-wei, K'ang. See K'ang Nan-hai tzu-pien nien-p'u (Chronological Autobiography of K'ang Yu-wei, Chao Feng-t'ien edition), in WHPF., Vol. 4, pp. 136–137;Google Scholar see also English translation of T'ung-pi's, K'ang edition by Lo, Jungpang in Lo, Jung-pang (ed.), K'ang Yu-wei: A Biography and a Symposium (Tucson, 1967), p. 77;Google ScholarChih Hsin Pao (The China Reformer), 17/5/1897.

^{page 33 note 4} See K'ang Yu-wei, ‘Tsou-ch'ing tsun K'ung-sheng wei kuo-chiao li chiao-pu chiao-hui i K'ung-tzu chi-nien erh fei yin-ssu che’ (‘A Memorial Urging the Throne to Proclaim Confucianism a State Religion, to Establish a Religious Department and Confucian Temples, to Base the National Calendar on the Birth Date of Confucius, and to Abolish Improper Sacrifices’), in K'ang Nan-hai wen-chi (Collected Works of K'ang Yu-wei) (Shanghai, 1913), Vol. 5, ‘Tsou-i’ (Memorials), pp. 10–13; see also K'ang Yu-wei, Pu-jen tsa-chih, No. 7 (August, 1913), ‘Wen’, pp. 1–8Google Scholar; WHPF., Vol. 2, pp. 230–36.

^{page 34 note 5} See Ta-ch'ing Te-tsung ching huang-ti shih-lu (Veritable Records of the Emperor Kuanghsü of the Ch'ing Dynasty) (Mukden, 1937), Vol. 567, p. 6Google Scholar.

^{page 34 note 6} See Jung-pang Lo, “Sequel to the Chronological Autobiography of K'ang Yu-wei”, in Jung-pang Lo (ed.), K'ang Yu-wei: A Biography and A Symposium, pp. 206–7Google Scholar.

^{page 34 note 7} See Tse-tsung, Chow, “The Anti-Confucian Movement in Early Republic China”, in Wright, A. F. (ed.), The Confucian Persuasion (Stanford, 1960), p. 289Google Scholar.

^{page 34 note 8} See Cheng-fu kung-pao (Government Gazette), No. 631, February 8, 1914.

^{page 35 note 9} Chow Tse-tsung, op. cit., p. 293.

^{page 35 note 10} See Tse-tsung, Chow, The May Fourth Movement: Intellectual Revolution in Modern China (Stanford, 1967), pp. 50, 300–313Google Scholar.

^{page 35 note 11} Chiang Kai-shek used in 1934 the four Confucian Cardinal Virtues of li, i, lien, and ch'ih (“regulated attitude, right conduct, clear discrimination, and real self-consciousness”) as the four pillars of the New Life Movement which he and the Nationalist government sponsored in the mid-1930's. See Chan, Wing-tsit, Religious Trends in Modern China (New York, 1953), p. 22.Google Scholar A recent article examining the ideology behind the New Life Movement is Dirlik's, Arif“The Ideological Foundations of the New Life Movement: A Study in Counterrevolution”, in Journal of Asian Studies, Vol. 34, No. 4 (Aug. 1975), pp. 945–980CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

^{page 36 note 12} See Ee, J., “Chinese Migration to Malaya”, in Journal of Southeast Asian History, Vol. 2, No. 1 (March, 1961), p. 38Google Scholar; Straits Settlements Blue Book, 1881.; J. R. Innes & H. Marriott, “Report on the Census of the Straits Settlements”, 1911.

^{page 36 note 13} See Hock, Chen Mong, The Early Chinese Newspapers of Singapore 1881–1912 (Singapore, 1967), pp. 111–146Google Scholar.

^{page 36 note 14} For details of the establishment of Ch'ing Consulate in Singapore, see Chung-chi, Wen, “The Nineteenth Century Imperial Chinese Consulate in the Straits Settlements” (unpublished M.A. thesis, University of Malaya, Singapore, 1964)Google Scholar.

^{page 36 note 15} The abolition of traditional hostile policy towards overseas Chinese was proclaimed in September 1893, the Court acted on this matter on the recommendation of the Chinese Minister to Britain, France, Italy and Belgium, Hsüeh Fu-ch'eng See Fu-ch'eng, Hsueh, Hsüeh Fu-ch'eng ch'üan-chi (The Complete Works of Hsüeh Fu-ch'eng), hai-wai wen-pien, Vol. 1, pp. 17–20.Google Scholar; Kuang-hsü-ch'ao tung-hua lu (Records of the Kuang-hsü Reign) (Peking, 1958), Vol. 3, pp. 3243–44Google Scholar.

^{page 36 note 16} A well-known Chinese Kapitan, Chang Keng Kui (, Cheng Ching-kuei in Mandarin, or known as Chung Keng Kwee and Ah Quee) donated 100,000 taels to the Ch'ing government to support the fight against the French in Indochina. See “The paper presented to Chang Keng Kui on his 75th birthday by Chang Pi-shih and others”, quoted in Kuo-hsiang, K'uang, Pin-ch'eng san-chi (Hong Kong, 1958), p. 112Google Scholar.

^{page 36 note 17} See Lat Pau, 27, 28 February, 8, 11, 18 and 26 March 1889; Thien Nan Shin Pao, 12, 21 November 1898, p. 2, 10 November 1899, p. 2, 29 July and 8 November 1902.

^{page 36 note 18} When Chinese warships under the command of Admiral Ting Jü-ch'ang visited Singapore in April 1890, Admiral Ting and his crew were well received and entertained by local Chinese communities. See Lat Pau, 10, 14 and 16 April, 1890, p. 2; 15 April 1890, p. 5.

^{page 36 note 19} See Chen Mong Hock, op. cit., pp. 114–16, 124.

^{page 37 note 20} Chin-shih was a title given to successful candidates in the metropolitan examination.

^{page 37 note 21} The treatise was written by Hui-yüan T'ao Shih-feng . See Sing Po 7/6/1894, p. 1.

^{page 37 note 22} See Chen Mong Hock, op. cit., p. 54.

^{page 37 note 23} It is also significant that an examination of the editorials of the Lat Pau, the earliest Chinese newspaper published in Singapore, reveals that no article was written in connection with Confucianism earlier than 1894.

^{page 37 note 24} See Sing Po, 7–8/1/1895, pp. 1 and 4; 28/4/1896, p. 1; 8/9/1896, p. 4; 22/10/1896, pp. 1 and 4; 29/10/1896, p. 1; 1/10/1897, p. 1, 16/10/1897, pp. 1 and 4. The article written by an editorial writer entitled ‘Lun K'ung-chiao sheng yü Chi-tu-chiao’ (“Confucianism is Superior to Christianity”) serves as a typical example. The author refuted the view of well-known British missionary Lin Lo-chih ( Young John Allen) that Confucianism was the source of China's weaknesses, and emphasized that Confucianism was not identical with conservatism. See Sing Po, 22/10/1896, pp. land 4.

^{page 37 note 25} See Sing Po, 4/6/1897, pp. 5 and 8.

^{page 37 note 26} See Sing Po, 28/10/1898, p. 3.

^{page 37 note 27} Sing Po, 25,27/11/1895; 20,23/12/1895; 3,14,20/1/1896; 6,8,25/2/1896; 2,4,5,11,20/3/1896; 6/4/1896; 18,19,23/6/1896; 3,7,9,11/7/1896; 30/8/1897; 28,29/9/1897.

^{page 38 note 28} See Chen Mong Hock, op. cit., p. 57.

^{page 38 note 29} About Huang Nai-shang's change from a reformist to a revolutionary, see Hock, Teo Eng, Nan-yang yü ch'uang-li Min-kuo (Nan-yang and the Founding of the Chinese Republic) (Shanghai, 1933), pp. 108–12Google Scholar.

^{page 38 note 30} Thien Nan Shin Pao, 8/3/1899, p. 1; 29/4/1899, pp. 1–2; 2/5/1899, pp. 1–2; 3/5/1899, p. 3:4/5/1899, pp. 1–2; 6/6/1899, pp. 2–3.

^{page 38 note 31} Ibid., 31/3/1899, p. 2; 10/8/1899, pp. 1–2; 17/8/1899, p. 2.

^{page 38 note 32} Ibid., 28/9/1899, p. 2; 30/9/1899, pp. 1–2.

^{page 38 note 33} See ‘Regulations of Promoting the Worship of Confucius’ in the Thien Nan Shin Pao, 30/9/1899, p. 1.

^{page 38 note 34} The school which was among the earliest Chinese schools ever founded in Singapore and Malaya, belonged to the Fukien community for the purpose of educating Fukien children. See Siang, Song Ong, One Hundred Years’ History of the Chinese in Singapore (Reprinted edition, Singapore, 1967), p. 46Google Scholar; Su-wu, Hsü, Hsin-chia-p'o hua-ch'iao chiao-yü ch'üan-mao (Chinese Education in Singapore) (Singapore, 1950),. p. 14Google Scholar.

^{page 38 note 35} Thien Nan Shin Pao, 13/10/1899, p. 7.

^{page 39 note 36} Ibid., 17/10/1899, p. 2.

^{page 39 note 37} Ibid., 4/12/1899, p. 2.

^{page 39 note 38} Khoo Seok-wan was born in Hai-ch'eng district of Fukien province in 1874. His father, Khoo Cheng Tiong came to Singapore with meagre means and gradually advanced to become one of the best known rice merchants in the settlement. Seok-wan was first brought up by his aunt in Macao, and later came to Singapore at the seven sui. He received private tuition at home, mainly in the Confucian Classics. He went back to China to sit for imperial examinations, and obtained his chii-jen degree in 1894. When he returned to Singapore in 1895 after his disillusionment with the Chinese bureaucracy, he became a prominent figure in the Chinese community in Singapore. He became a leader in literary cricles in Singapore, and was often a judge for the monthly literary competitions. Details of his involvement in the reform and Confucian revival movements will be discussed in later sections. See Seok-wan, Khoo, Wu-pai-shih tung-t'ien hui-ch'eng, Vol. 10, pp. 18–19Google Scholar; Khoo Ming Kuan (daughter of Khoo Seok-wan), interview on 4 and 9 September 1966 at her residence in Singapore.

^{page 39 note 39} Thien Nan Shin Pao, 28/10/1898, p. 3, 10/8/1899, pp. 1–2.

^{page 39 note 40} Ibid., 31/3/1899, p. 2; 9/10/1899, p. 2; 19/10/1899, p. 5; 28/10/1899, p. 2; 7/11/1899, p. 2.

^{page 39 note 41} Ibid., 16/6/1898, p. 3; 8/3/1899, p. 1; 29/4/1899, pp. 1–2; 2/5/1899, pp. 1–2; 3/5/1899, p. 3; 4/5/1899, pp. 1–2; 26/3/1900, p. 1; 27/3/1900, pp. 1–2, 28/11/1901, p. 2.

^{page 39 note 42} A letter was sent by the Chinese merchants in Kuala Lumpur to the T'ien Nan Shin Pao praising its effort in promoting Confucianism. Ibid., 6/6/1899, pp. 2–3.

^{page 39 note 43} Ibid., 8,9/11/1899, p. 2; 10/11/1899, p. 7; 11/11/1899, p. 2, 13,14/11/1899, p. 2.

^{page 39 note 44} The Jit Shin Pau was the successor to the Sing Po which was probably bought and reorganized by Dr. Lim Boon Keng who became the Jit Shin Pau's proprietor. See Jit Shin Pau, 14/10/1899, p. 1Google Scholar; Chen Mong Hock, op. cit., pp. 75–77.

^{page 39 note 45} See Jit Shin Pau, 13/10/1899, p. 1; 14/10/1899, p. 1; 13/11/1899, p. 1; 14/11/1899, p. 1; 15/11/1899, p. 1.

^{page 40 note 46} Ibid., 5/10/1899, 9/10/1899, p. 4.

^{page 40 note 47} Jit Shin Pau, 13/12/1899, p. 1; 14/12/1899, p. 1; 15/12/1899, p. 1. Most of Lim Boon Keng's English writings in expounding Confucian teachings were published in the Straits Chinese Magazine, see for instance, “The Confucian Code of Conjugal Harmony” (Vol. XI, 1907, no. 1, pp. 24–7)Google Scholar, “The Confucian Ethics of Friendship” (Vol. XI, 1907, no. 2, pp. 73–8)Google Scholar.

^{page 40 note 48} Thien Nan Shin Pao, 11/10/1901, p. 2.

^{page 40 note 49} K'ang's passage from Hong Kong to Singapore was paid by Khoo, see Jung-pang Lo, “Sequelio Autobiography of Kang Yu-wei” p. 183Google Scholar; The Straits Times 3/2/1900, p. 3.

^{page 40 note 50} K'ang was in Singapore from 1st February to 8th August, and in Penang from 9th August to 6th December. In Penang, he mainly stayed in the mansion of the Resident-Councillor, and visited Perak once in October. See Jung-pang Lo, op. cit., pp. 188–9.

^{page 40 note 51} 100,000 taels were offered by the Ch'ing government for his and Liang Ch'i-ch'ao's life. See Ta-ch'ing Te-tsung Ching huang-ti shih-lu, Vol. 458, p. 11Google Scholar. See also Kuang-hsü-ch'ao t'ung-hua lu, Vol. 4, pp. 4–5Google Scholar.

^{page 40 note 52} To hoodwink potential assassins, K'ang pretended to leave Singapore and appeared on board of a ship on 23rd February. But by arrangement he returned to Singapore and remained in hiding. See Song Ong Siang, op. cit., pp. 313–14.

^{page 40 note 53} Jung-pang Lo, op. cit., p. 184; Hsien-tze, Wu, Chung-kuo Min-chu hsien-cheng-tang shih (A History of the Democratic Constitutional Party of China) (San Francisco, 1952), p. 32Google Scholar.

^{page 40 note 54} Jung-pang Lo, op. cit., p. 184.

^{page 41 note 55} See Ch'iu Feng-chia, ‘Ch'ien Hsing-chou Min Yüeh hsiang-jen ho-chien K'ung-tzu-miao chi ta-hsüeh-t'ang ch'i (“To Urge Fellow Countrymen of Fukien and Kwangtung Provinces in Singapore to Found Confucian Temples and Modern Schools”), in Jit Shin Pau, 27/3/1900, p. 1.

^{page 41 note 56} See Hummel, A. W. (ed.), Eminent Chinese of the Ch'ing Period 1644–1912 (Washington, 1943–44), Vol. 1, p. 171Google Scholar.

^{page 41 note 57} See Nai-shih, Tseng, ‘I-wei chih i Ch'iu Feng-chia shih-chi k'ao-cheng’ (“Note of the Deeds of Ch'iu Feng-chia in the 1895 War”), in T'ai-wan wen-hsien (Historical Documents of Formosa), Vol. 7, pp. 3–4, 67–8Google Scholar; See also Lamley, H. J., ‘The 1895 Taiwan Republic,’ in Journal of Asian Studies, Vol. 27, No. 4 (August, 1968), p. 745CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

^{page 41 note 58} A. W. Hummel op. cit., p. 171.

^{page 41 note 59} Ch'iu Feng-chia, op. cit., in Jit Shin Pau, 27/3/1900, p. 1.

^{page 41 note 60} According to Ch'iu, he met Lim Boon Keng, Khoo Seok-wan, Huang Nai-shang and Hsü Chi-chün (an editor of the Thien Nan Shin Pao) and was informed about the movement. He was thus committed to support it. Ibid. According to Jung-pang Lo, Ch'iu was one of a few people who had close contact with K'ang Yu-wei in Singapore. Ch'iu might have got encouragement from K'ang to commit himself to the movement. See Jung-pang Lo, op. cit., p. 184.

^{page 41 note 61} See Wang Hsiao-ch'ang, ‘Hsing-chou i chien K'ung-miao chi k'ai ta-hsüeh-t'ang shuo’ (‘An Argument for Establishing Confucian Temples and Schools in Singapore’), in Jit Shin Pau, 26/3/1900, p. 1Google Scholar; see also the public talk given by Ch'iu Feng-chia in Ipoh in May 1900, in Thien Nan Shin Pao, 4/6/1900, pp. 1–2Google Scholar.

^{page 41 note 62} Jit Shin Pau, 5/5/1900, p. 6.

^{page 42 note 63} For a discussion about values in Chinese communities in Singapore and Malaya during this period, see Ching-hwang, Yen, ‘Ch'ing's Sale of Honours and the Chinese Leadership of Singapore and Malaya’, in Journal of Southeast Asian Studies, Vol. 1, No. 2. (Sept. 1970), pp. 20–32CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

^{page 42 note 64} See Ching-hwang, Yen, “Chinese Revolutionary Movement in Malaya 1900–1911” (Unpublished Ph.D. thesis, Australian National University, Canberra, 1970), Vol. 1, pp. 7–9aGoogle Scholar.

^{page 42 note 65} I am unable to find the original statement itself, but infer from regulations against it published in the Thien Nan Shin Pao. See Thien Nan Shin Pao, 12/12/1899, p. 1. 13/12/1899, p. 1.

^{page 42 note 66} One of the dramatic episodes in Singapore at the turn of the present century was Khoo Seok-wan's repentance of his association with K'ang Yu-wei. Because of deep involvement in the Hankow Revolt, the Ch'ing government used Khoo's kinsmen at his native village in China as hostage to force him to denounce publicly his past association with the reformists. At the beginning of 1901, the Governor-General of Kwangtung and Kwangsi, T'ao Mo , instructed the Ch'ing Consul-General in Singapore, Lo Shu-keng , to investigate Khoo and Lim's involvement in the revolt. The letter was first published in the Hua Chih Jih Pao in Hong Kong, and was republished in the Thien Nan Shin Pao on 4 April 1901. Khoo published two open letters in the same newspaper denying his involvement. In fact, he paid a large sum of money to purchase a Ch'ing title in token of diverting allegiance from the reformists to the Ch'ing. See the ‘Letter of the Governor-General of Kwangtung and Kwangsi T'ao Mo to the Consul-General Lo Shu-keng’, in Thien Nan Shin Pao, 4/4/1901, p. 1; interview with Khoo Meng-kuan, daughter of Khoo Seok-wan, on 11 September 1966 at her residence in Singapore; Chen Mong Hock, op. cit.

^{page 43 note 67} See Thien Nan Shin Pao, 12/12/1899, p. 1, and 13/12/1899, p. 1.

^{page 43 note 68} This point will be developed in the following section about the doctrine of the Confucian revival movement.

^{page 43 note 69} After nearly a year's stay in Singapore and Malaya, K'ang with his daughter T'ung-pi set sail from Penang for Northern India on 8th December 1900. See Jung-pang Lo, ‘Sequel to Autobiography’, in Lo (ed.), K'ang Yu-wei: A Biography and Symposium, p. 189.Google Scholar

^{page 43 note 70} Chang was a chü-jen degree holder, and a native of Ta-p'u of Kwangtung province, he had some personal connections with some merchants in Kuala Lumpur. Wu, a Szechwanese, was holding a title of t'ung-chih (sub-prefect), and was awarded by the Ch'ing court in 1903 for his effort in promoting Confucianism overseas. Sea Wu T'ung-lin, ‘An Open Letter to Comrades about the Founding of Confucian Temples and Modern Schools’, in Thien Nan Shin Pao, 17/3/1902, pp. 1–2Google Scholar; Ta-ch'ing Te-tsung Ching-huang-ti shih-lu (Veritable Records of the Emperor Kuang-hsü), Vol. 516, p. 4bGoogle Scholar.

^{page 43 note 71} Lat Pau, 2/10/1901, p. 6, 3/10/1901, p. 6.

^{page 44 note 72} See Hsi K'uang-sheng, “Hsiang-chi Hsing-chia-p'o K'ung-chiao t'ung-jen yen-shuo” (“Details of the Speeches made by the Singapore Confucian revivalists”), in Thien Nan Shin Pao, 11/10/1901, p. 2Google Scholar

^{page 44 note 73} Ibid.,

^{page 44 note 74} Lat Pau, 11/10/1901, p. 2.

^{page 44 note 75} Goh came from the same prefecture, Chang-chou , with Lim Boon Keng and Khoo Seok-wan, and the three of them were the important leaders of the Fukien community during that time.

^{page 44 note 76} Goh was an active member of the board of the Lo-shan she in Singapore which upheld Chinese tradition by holding regular lecture classes. The Sixteen Maxims of the Sacred Edict of the Emperor K'ang-hsi were the main contents of the lectures. See Sing Po, 5/3/1896, p. 5. 6/3/1897, p. 5.

^{page 44 note 77} A full list of these committee members was published on the Thien Nan Shin Pao, 19th March, 1902, p. 1Google Scholar.

^{page 44 note 78} See “Hsin-chia-p'o ch'ang-chien K'ung-miao hsueh-t'ang ch'uan-chien ch'i” (‘A Public Notice for Soliciting Funds for Establishing Confucian Temples and Schools in Singapore’), in Thien Nan Shin Pao, 10/3/1902, p. 2.

^{page 44 note 79} The known leaders of the Fukien community were Goh Siew-tin, Khoo Seok-wan, Lim Boon Keng, Tan Boo Liat , Loh Kim Pong, Wu K'wei-p'u Wu I-ting Teo Sian Keng and Lim Peng Siang ; Cantonese noted leaders were Loke Yew, Lam Wai Fong and Wong Ah Fock ( or known as Huang P'u-t'ien ); Teochew leaders were Teo Eng-hock , Tseng Chao-nan and Chang Shun-shan . See Thien Nan Shin Pao, 19/3/1902, p. 1.

^{page 45 note 80} See Thien Nan Shin Pao, 17/3/1901, pp. 1–2.

^{page 45 note 81} See Wu T'ung-lin, op. cit., in Thien Nan Shin Pao, 17/3/1902, pp. 1–2.

^{page 45 note 82} According to this regulation, four grades — $5,000, $3,000, $1,000, $500 were offered. The ancestral tablets of donors over $5,000 were to be placed at the centre of the shrine; those of $3,000 at centre left; $1,000 at centre right and those of $500 at the left of the shrine. This gradation system was apparently based on a traditional Chinese concept of gradation of position. See “The Fourteenth Regulations for Fund Raising for Confucian Temples and Modem Schools”, in Thien Nan Shin Pao, 10/3/1902, p. 7.

^{page 45 note 83} See Yen Ching-hwang, “Ch'ing's Sales of Honours and the Chinese Leadership in Singapore and Malaya, 1895–1912,” pp. 20–32Google Scholar.

^{page 45 note 84} Thien Nan Shin Pao, 2/5/1902, p. 6.

^{page 45 note 85} In any building of Chinese hui-kitan (association) in Singapore and Malaya, on will notice many portraits hung on the walls. These portraits are mainly of the founders and donors of large sums of money to the associations. This practice is apparently designed to offer prestige and reputation in order to attract big benefactors.

^{page 45 note 86} No total figure of the funds raised was published in the Thien Nan Shin Pao. Writing at the end of September 1902, the editor of the Thien Nan mentioned that about seventy to eighty thousand dollars were donated by about a dozen rich merchants. This figure obviously does not represent the total amount of the money. In a letter to K'ang Yu-wei dated November 1902, Liang Ch'i-ch'ao believed that more than S$200,000 was raised. This figure may be quite close to the total amount raised in Singapore. See Thien Nan Shin Pao, 27/9/1902, p. 2; Wenchiang, Ting, Liang Jen-kung hsien-sheng nien-p'u ch'ang-pien ch'u-kao (The Draft of Liang Ch'i-ch'ao's Chronological Biography) (Taipei, 1959), p. 152Google Scholar.

^{page 45 note 87} See “Ta k'e wen Pen-p'o K'ung-miao hsiieh-t'ang shih” (“In Reply to Our Readers about Confucian Temples and Modern Schools in Singapore”), in Thien Nan Shin Pao, 27/9/1902, p. 2.

^{page 45 note 88} Ibid.

^{page 46 note 89} Goh relinquished his post as the Acting Consul-General soon after the arrival of the new Consul-General.

^{page 46 note 90} See Thien Nan Shin Pao, 23/5/1902, p. 2. 24/5/1902, p. 2. 26/5/1902, p. 2.

^{page 46 note 91} See the original text of Liang's “To Protect Religion is not to Worship Confucius” published in the Hsin-min ts'ung-pao, particularly Section 5. See also Ch'i-ch'ao, Liang, Yin-pingshih wen-chi (Hong Kong, 1955), Vol. 3, pp. 20–22Google Scholar.

^{page 46 note 92} Ibid.Huang, Philip C., Liang Ch'i-ch'ao and Modern Chinese Liberalism (Seattle, 1972), pp. 62–83Google Scholar.

^{page 46 note 93} See Ting Wen-chiang (ed.), p. 152.

^{page 46 note 94} See Lat Pau, 23/9/1908, p. 1; 30/9/1908, p. 9; 9/10/1909, 12/10/1909, p. 5.

^{page 46 note 95} Lat Pau, 23/9/1908, p. 1.

^{page 46 note 96} See Penang Sin Pao, 31/7/1911, p. 2; 3/8/1911, p. 2; 5/8/1911, p. 3; 21/8/1911, p. 3; 12/9/1911, p. 3; 15/9/1911, p. 3; 5/10/1911, p. 3; 9/10/1911, p. 2; 23/10/1911, pp. 2 and 3; Nan Ch'iao Jih Pao, 28/10/1911, p. 9, 30/10/1911, p. 9.

^{page 46 note 97} A notice urging all Chinese to observe the Confucius birthday as a public holiday was put up at the Consul's office, and was published in the local Chinese newspapers. See The Union Times, 29/9/1909, p. 3. 5/10/1909, p. 4; Lat Pau, 29/9/1909, p. 5.

^{page 46 note 98} Consul-General Tso Ping-lung , who held that post twice in Singapore (1891–1894, 1907–1911), was famous for his cultural inclination and activities in the local Chinese communities. His poems and writings are collected in a book entitled Ch'in-mien-t'ang shih-ch'ao (Collection of Poetry of the Diligence Hall) (Hong Kong, 1959)Google Scholar.

^{page 47 note 99} The Standing Committee of the Singapore Chinese Chamber of Commerce resolved that a notice declaring Confucius’ birthday a public holiday for Chinese should be widely distributed to all Chinese merchants in Singapore. They were also urged to hoist Chinese flags and put up lanterns to celebrate the occasion. See Minutes of the Singapore Chinese Chamber of Commerce dated the ninth day of eighth moon on the I-yu year (22nd September of 1909) (manuscript), p. 176.

^{page 47 note 100} The important Ch'ing documents such as Ta-Ch'ing Te-tsung Ching huang-ti shih-lu and Kuang-hsu-ch'ao tung-hua lu, give no indication that the Emperor had accepted K'ang's advice in his memorial dated 1898.

^{page 47 note 101} The sacrifice for Confucius in the Ch'ing Dynasty was based on those of the previous dynasties. It was of middle grade, while sacrifices to Heaven and Earth were of the first grade. See Ta-Ch'ing t'ung-li (General Regulations of the Ch'ing), chüan (part) 12.

^{page 47 note 102} Under the Boxer Protocol in 1901, the Ch'ing Government under the rule of the Empress Dowager Tz'u-hsi was to undertake reforms. The reforms covered governmental structure, economic and legal institutions, education and examination systems. See Cameron, M. E., The Reform Movement in China 1898–1912 (New York, 1963)Google Scholar.

^{page 47 note 103} See the memorial of Chih-tung, Chang, incorporated in the Kuang-hsü-ch'ao tung-hua lu, Vol. 5, pp. 50–51Google Scholar.

^{page 47 note 104} See the memorial of the Ministry of Education incorporated in theKuang-hsu-ch'ao tung-hua lu, Vol. 5, pp. 148–49Google Scholar.

^{page 47 note 105} See Ta-Ch'ing Te-tsung Ching huang-ti shih-lu, Vol. 423, pp. 4–5Google Scholar; see also Kuang-hsu-ch'ao tung-hua lu, Vol. 4, pp. 136–37Google Scholar.

^{page 47 note 106} See Ta-ch'ing Teh-tsung Ching huang-ti shih-lu Vol. 536, p. 6Google Scholar.

^{page 47 note 107} Several officials were sent by the Ch'ing government, particularly the government of Kwangtung province, to Southeast Asia to promote Chinese education. In 1906, Liu Shih-chi ( who held the rank of district magistrate) and Wang Feng-hsiang ( who also held the same rank) were despatched to Singapore and Malaya and the Dutch East Indies for that purpose. They were followed by Ch'ien Hsün in 1907. See Lat Pau, 24/10/1906, p. 5.; The Straits Times, 25/10/1906, p. 6; and Williams, L. E., Overseas Chinese Nationalism: The Genesis of the Pan-Chinese Movement in Indonesia, 1900–1916 (Glencoe, 1960), pp. 150–151Google Scholar.

^{page 48 note 108} Modern Chinese primary schools, established in Singapore and Malaya as the result of the visit of the Ch'ing officials were the Confucian School in Kuala Lumpur, and the Tuan Mong School in Singapore. See “A Short History of the Confucian Middle School”, in the Souvenir Magazine of the Senior and Junior Middle Graduates of the Confucian Middle School of 1965 (Kuala Lumpur, 1965), p. 6.Google Scholar; Kuo-chang, Lin, “A Brief History of the Tuan Meng School”, in The Souvenir Magazine of 30th Anniversary of the Tuan Meng School in Singapore (Singapore, 1936), p. 11Google Scholar. A detailed study about the rise of modern Chinese schools in Singapore and Malaya is found in Ah Chai's, Lee“Policies and Politics in Chinese Schools in the Straits Settlements and the Federated Malay States 1786–1941” (Unpublished M.A. thesis, University of Malaya, Singapore, 1958)Google Scholar.

^{page 48 note 109} See the memorial of the Ministry of Education incorporated in theKuang-hsü-ch'ao tung-hua lu, vol. 5, pp. 148–149Google Scholar.

^{page 48 note 110} Chang was one of the wealthiest Chinese merchants in Southeast Asia during his time. He was made the first Chinese Vice-Consul in Penang, and then the Acting Chinese ConsulGeneral in Singapore in 1895. Because of his effort in promoting China's economic modernization, he was given an audience with the Empress Dowager Tz'u-hsi, in 1903, and was then appointed as the Special Trade Commissioner to Southeast Asia in 1904 and concurrently the Director of Agriculture, Industry and Mining for the Kwangtung and Fukien Provinces. Apart from these offices, Chang held several Ch'ing titles. A short biography of Chang in English is found in Biographical Dictionary of Republic of China, Vol. 1 (New York, 1967)Google Scholar, edited by H. L. Boorman and R. C. Howard. His short biography in Chinese is found in K'uang Kuohsiang's Ping-ch'eng san-chi, pp. 97–107Google Scholar, and the same author's article published in Hsingnung, P'an (ed.), The Teochews in Malaya (Singapore, 1950), p. 153Google Scholar, and in Shu-lin, Liang and others (ed.), K'e Chia: Souvenir of the Opening Ceremony of the Perak Hakka Association (Penang, 1951), pp. 505–07Google Scholar.

^{page 48 note 111} See Yen Ching-hwang, thesis cited in fn. 64, pp. 68–129, 217–40.

^{page 48 note 112} The Reformist organ in Penang, the Penang Sin Pao strongly advocated the movement by giving it wide publicity and moral support. See the Penang Sin Pao from 31st July to 31st December, 1911.

^{page 48 note 113} See Penang Sin Pao, 5/8/1911, p. 3.

^{page 49 note 114} Penang Sin Pao, 21/8/1911, p. 3.

^{page 49 note 115} Penang Sin Pao, 12/9/1911, p. 3.

^{page 49 note 116} The Penang Sin Pao, 11/9/1911, p. 3, 12/9/1911, p. 3. 23/10/1911. p. 3.

^{page 49 note 117} Penang Sin Pao, 30/9/1911, p. 9.

^{page 49 note 118} See Eng-hee, Khor, “The Public Life of Dr. Lim Boon Keng” (Unpublished B.A. Honours thesis, University of Malaya, 1958), p. 29Google Scholar. With regard to Lim's proposed reform of Chinese social customs such as marriage, funeral and value of filial piety, see Lim's articles in the Straits Chinese Magazine, vol. 4. No. 13, pp. 25–30, no. 14, pp. 49–57; vol. 5, no. 17 pp. 58–60Google Scholar.

^{page 49 note 119} Khoo Seok-wan involved himself in speculating in land and property. In 1903 he went into partnership with Mei Hua-chang involving in real estate, pawn shop and jewellery. Another important leader Goh Siew-tin was more deeply involved in business. He was the proprietor of a famous shop, Chop Ann Ho, and was involved in shipping, tin-mining and saw-milling. See Song Ong Siang, op. cit., pp. 101–2, 143–4; Thien Nan Shih Pao, 2/1/1903, p. 3.; Hsiao-hsien, Su, “A Short Biography of Goh Siew-tin”, in Hsiao-hsien, Su (ed.), Chang-chou shih-shu lü Hsin t'ung-hsiang lu (A List of Chang-chou People in Singapore) (Singapore, 1948), p. 59Google Scholar.

^{page 50 note 120} See Thien Nan Shin Pao, 19/3/1902, p. 1.

^{page 50 note 121} Lam Kim Seng was a famous entrepot trader and banker,; Loh Kim Pong was a famous Chinese medicine merchant and a banker and he demonstrated his wealth by building a famous Buddhist temple ‘Shuang-lin Shih’ in 1903; Loke Yew was the leading tin-miner in Malaya, a multi-millionaire; Lim Peng Siang was a leading ship-owner, banker and manufacturer; Chua Chu Yong was a multi-millionaire engaged in entrepot trade, particularly in rice and sugar; Teo Sian Keng, a reowned export and import merchant; Lee Choon Guan was-a^ famous merchant and financier. The wealth of Chua Chu Yong, Lim Peng Siang, Teo Sian Keng and Lam Wai Fong enabled them to hold important positions like president and vice-president in the Singapore Chinese Chamber of Commerce from 1906 to 1908. See Su Hsiao-hsien (ed.), op. cit., pp. 59–61.; P'an Hsing-nung (ed.), op. cit., pp. 158, 178, 195 and 211.; Chiang, Koh Kow (ed.), Who's Who in South East Asia (Singapore 1965), pp. A4–A7, A58-A64Google Scholar; See also the list of the Committee Members of the Singapore Chinese Chamber of Commerce for 1906, 1907 and 1908, in the Minutes of the Singapore Chinese Chamber of Commerce (Manuscript), Vol. 1. pp. 2–3, 60–61 and 125–127Google Scholar.

^{page 50 note 122} According to the 1901 census of the Straits Settlements, there were 93,851 Hokkien (Fukien), 50, 591 Cantonese, 44,230 Teochew, 18,446 Kheh (Hakka), 16,788 Hailam (Hainanese) and 13,725 Hok-chiu. It must be noted here that the term ‘Hokkien’ referred only to Southern Fukien. See Straits Settlements Blue Book for 1906, p. 5, ‘Population of the Straits Settlements’.

^{page 50 note 123} This is the impression from those identifiable leaders on the committee. Of those leaders mentioned above, Lim Peng Siang, Loh Kim Pong, Teo Sian Keng and Lee Choon Guan were leaders of Fukien dialect group; Lam Kim Seng, Chua Chu Yong were Teochew leaders; Loke Yew and Lam Wai Fong were Cantonese leaders.

^{page 50 note 124} Po Leung Kuk was a welfare organization initiated by the Straits Settlements government for protecting Chinese female immigrants who were forced to prostitution. On the Po Leung Kuk committee for 1904, 9 for Fukien, 7 for Teochew, 5 for Cantonese, 1 each for Hakka and Hainanese ; In another semi-official organization known as Chinese Advisory Board, the distribution of dialect group representatives was Hokkien 6, Teochew 5, Cantonese 4, Hakka 2 and Hainanese 2. See Annual Departmental Reports of the Straits Settlements for 1904, p. 127.

^{page 50 note 125} Before the founding of the Chinese Chamber of Commerce in Singapore in 1906, a commercial organization known as Bureau of Commercial Affairs was founded in 1896. On the committee, there were 13 Fukien representatives, 11 Teochew, 7 Cantonese, 6 Hakka and 3 Hainanese. See Sing Po, 1/2/1896, p. 4. Since its inception in 1906, the representation of dialect groups on the executive committee of the Singapore Chinese Chamber of Commerce was based on the ‘Pang’ concept which was a combination of geographical and dialect differences. There were two pangs: Fukien and Kwangtung, the latter including Cantonese, Teochew, Hakka and Hainanese. On the 1908 executive committee, there were 31 members for Kwangtung pang, and 21 for Fukien pang. However, on sub-committees, representation seemed to have worked on a dialect basis. In the financial sub-committee for 1911, there were 4 Fukien, 3 Teochew, 2 Cantonese, Hakka and Hainanese 1 each. See Minutes of the Singapore Chinese Chambers of Commerce, Vol. 1. pp. 125–126, Vol. 2. pp. 65–66.

^{page 51 note 126} This practice is still common among Chinese leadership in Singapore and Malaysia. Some leaders allowed their names to appear on committees of various organizations purely because of social prestige and leadership status. It is interesting to note that in biographical writings Chinese leaders in Singapore and Malaysia tend to put down as many positions in various social organizations as possible to support claim to leadership status.

^{page 51 note 127} According to the Census of 1891, the number of the Straits-born Chinese was 12,805 and ranked fourth after Fukien (45,856), Teochew (23,737) and Cantonese (23,397). SeeStraits Settlements Blue Book for 1904, p. 12, “Population of the Straits Settlements”.

^{page 51 note 128} See for instance, L. E. Williams, op. cit., pp. 55–56.

^{page 51 note 129} They were Tan Boo Liat, Lim Boon Keng, Lee Choon Guan and Chua Mien Kuai (, or romanized in Mandarin as Ts'ai Mien-hsi). See Tien Nan Shin Pao, 19/3/1902, p. 1.

^{page 51 note 130} See a list of leaders of the Straits Chinese British Association in Fatt's, Yong Ching“A Preliminary Study of Chinese Leadership in Singapore 1900–1941”, in Journal of Southeast Asian History, vol. 9, no. 2 (Sept. 1968), p. 264CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

^{page 51 note 131} Ibid. p. 267.

^{page 52 note 132} A news item in Sing Po in March 1894 praised Dr. Lim Boon Keng as an excellent medical practitioner. It was reported that the Chinese Consul-General for the Straits Settlements, Huang Tsun-hsien, paid Dr. Lim respect by sending him some presents. See Sing Po, 13/3/1894, p. 4.

^{page 52 note 133} See Anonymous, Lin Wen-ch'ing chuan (A Biography of Dr. Lim Boon Keng) (Singapore, 1972), p. 2Google Scholar.

^{page 52 note 134} Two incidents occurred in Scotland while he was studying at the Edinburgh University. One was that he was not accepted by the Chinese students from China on the ground that he did not know the Chinese language. The second was that he was embarrassed by a lecturer who asked him to translate a Chinese scroll, and he had to admit his ignorance of the Chinese language. See Eng-hee, Khor, “The Public Life of Dr. Lim Boon Keng” (Unpublished B.A. Honours thesis, University of Malaya, Singapore, 1958), p. 4Google Scholar.

^{page 52 note 135} In August 1900, the newly formed Straits Chinese British Association partly under the leadership of Lim Boon Keng clearly spelled out its main aims: to promote interest in the affairs of the British Empire and to encourage and maintain members’ loyalty to the Queen. In July 1907, less than a year after its formation, the association under the leadership of Lim Boon Keng also pledged loyalty to the Chinese Emperor through the visiting Prince Ch'un. See Song Ong Siang, op. cit., p. 319 and The Straits Times, 31/7/1901, p. 2.

^{page 52 note 136} Khor Eng-hee, p. 21.

^{page 52 note 137} Lim Boon Keng, “Lun Ju-chiao” (“On Confucianism”), in Jih Hsin Pau, 15/12/1899, p. 1.

^{page 52 note 138} In a footnote to the article “On Confucianism”, Lim stated that in view of the obscurity of the real Confucianism, and the rise of heresy, there was a need to reveal the essence of Confucius’ teachings and to benefit human beings. Ibid.

^{page 43 note 139} See Ching, Wen (Lim Boon Keng), The Chinese Crisis From Within (London, 1901), especially pp. 100–67, 285–329Google Scholar.

^{page 43 note 140} KhorEng-hee, p. 21.

^{page 43 note 141} K'ang was described by Lim as the Chinese Encyclopaedist, and K'ang's works on Confucianism were considered to be of the highest importance in developing a new notion of teaching of the ancient Chinese Classics, and the influence of K'ang's works on China was compared with what Voltaire did for France before the French Revolution. See Wen Ching, op. cit., pp. 23–4, 33.

^{page 43 note 142} Wen Ching, op. cit., pp. 33–5.

^{page 43 note 143} Khor Eng-hee, op. cit., p. 29.

^{page 43 note 144} See Hsiao, Kung-ch'üan, “K'ang Yu-wei and Confucianism”, in Monumenta Serica, XVIII (Nagoya, 1959), pp. 92–212Google Scholar, particularly p. 165.

^{page 43 note 145} Jung-pang Lo, K'ang Yu-wei: A Biography and A Symposium, p. 6; see also the original text of the K'ung-tzu kai-chih k'ao.

^{page 43 note 146} Classical Text School (or known as Ancient Text School) and the Modern Text School (to which K'ang Yu-wei belonged) were the two competing schools interpreting Chinese Classics after the Six Classics were burned by the first emperor of the Ch'in dynasty (221–207 B.C.).

^{page 54 note 147} See K'ang Yu-wei, “Tsou ch'ing tsun K'ung-sheng wei kuo-chiao li chiao-pu chiao-hui i K'ung-tzu chi-nien erh fei yin-ssu che,” in K'ang Yu-wei, K'ang Nan-hai wen-chi, pp. 10–13.

^{page 54 note 148} See Hsiao, Kung-ch'uan, “K'ang Yu-wei and Confucianism”, Monumenta Serica, vol.18, pp. 88–212Google Scholar; Hao, Chang, Liang Ch'i-ch'ao and Intellectual Transition in China 1890–1907 (Cambridge, Massachusetts, 1971), pp. 50–51Google Scholar.

^{page 54 note 149} See Wang Ssu-hsiang, “Hsin-chou i chien K'ung-miao chi k'ai ta-hsiieh-t'ang shuo” (“Singapore Chinese should found Confucian temples and set up an university”), in Jit Shin Pau, 26/3/1900, p. 1.

^{page 54 note 150} Ch'iu Feng-chia, “Ch'ien Hsing-chou Min Yiieh hsiang-jen ho chien K'ung-tzu miao chi ta-hsiieh-t'ang ch'i” (“An Open Letter to Urge the Compatriots of Fukien and Kwangtung Provinces in Singapore to Found Confucian Temples and Set up an University”), in Jit Shin Pau, 27/3/1900, p. 1.

^{page 54 note 151} See Schwartz, Benjamin, In Search of Wealth and Power: Yen Fu and the West (Cambridge, Massachusetts, 1964), p. 114Google Scholar.

^{page 55 note 152} Op.cit., pp. 120–21.

^{page 55 note 153} Wang Ssu-hsiang, op. cit.

^{page 55 note 154} Wei-ch'uan chu-shih, “Chung-kuo shih nung kung shang chieh K'ung-chiao chung jen shuo” (“All Classes of China, i.e. Scholar, Peasant, Artisan and Merchant, are Confucian Supporters”), in Thien Nan Shin Pao, 5/6/1900, p. 1.

^{page 55 note 155} Ibid.

^{page 56 note 156} See Keng, Lim Boon, “The Education of Children”, in Straits Chinese Magazine, Vol. 3, No. 2, 1899Google Scholar.

^{page 56 note 157} Ibid.

^{page 56 note 158} This was contained in a speech given by Dr. Lim Boon Keng to a group of Confucian revivalists in Singapore in celebrating the birthday of Confucius. See “Hsiang-chi Hsin-chia-p'o K'ung-chiao t'ung-jen yen-shuo” (“Detailed Records of Speeches made by Singapore Confucian Revivalists”), in Thien Nan Shin Pao, 11/10/1901, p. 2.

^{page 56 note 159} See Keng, Lim Boon, “Education of Children”, in Straits Chinese Magazine, Vol. 3, No. 2, 1899Google Scholar.

^{page 56 note 160} See Keng, Lim Boon, “Singapore Chinese Girls School”, in Straits Chinese Magazine, Vol.6, No. 24, pp. 168–69Google Scholar.

^{page 56 note 161} See Khor Eng-hee, “The Public Life of Dr. Lim Boon Keng”, p. 27.

^{page 56 note 162} Song Ong Siang, op. cit., p. 101.

^{page 57 note 163} See “Chi Ch'iu kung-pu Feng-chia ta Pi-li fuo yen-shuo” (“Records of Ch'iu Feng-chia's Speech in Perak”), in Thien Nan Shin Pao, 4/6/1900, p. 1.

^{page 57 note 164} Ibid.

^{page 57 note 165} Dr. Lim Boon Keng's Speech, op. cit.