Chinese secret societies
W. A. Pickering, a senior colonial official in the Straits Settlements, published this second part of his study of Chinese secret societies in 1879, presenting a detailed ethnographic account of an initiatory ceremony of the Ghee Hin (Hung) Society as witnessed in a Singapore lodge. His overarching thesis is that, while the ritual retains its anti-Qing (“overturn the Chheng, restore the Beng”) symbolic architecture, the societies in the British colony have been functionally transformed into quasi-legal mutual-aid organisations whose recognition by the colonial state constitutes the only practicable mechanism of governance over a heterogeneous, dialect-fragmented Chinese population of some 300,000–400,000.
Summary
Pickering describes a full initiation ceremony at the Grand Lodge on Rochore, Singapore, lasting from 10 p.m. to 3 a.m. and admitting approximately seventy new members. The ritual proceeds through a sequence of symbolic spaces: the Ang Gate, the Hall of Sincerity and Justice, the City of Willows (with gates at each compass point guarded by ancient heroes), the Red-flowery Pavilion, the Two-planked Bridge, the Fiery Valley or Red Furnace, and finally the Market of Universal Peace and Temple of Virtue and Happiness. Each station is guarded by named figures (living or spirit), and candidates must recite prescribed verses and pass drawn swords before advancing. The ceremony culminates in a 333-question catechism administered by the Sien-Seng (Master of the Lodge) to the Vanguard General, followed by the new members’ oath, in which each candidate extinguishes an incense-stick as a pledge of fidelity (pp. 1–18).
A central empirical observation is the degree to which the ritual has been adapted to colonial conditions. Pickering records that the Sien-Seng explicitly told the new members that “many of our oaths and ceremonies are needless, and obsolete, as under the British Government there is no necessity for some of the rules,” and that the societies’ real function was to assist members in obtaining redress through the Registrars of Secret Societies, the Inspector General of Police, and the Protector of Chinese (p. 7). The oath formula itself incorporates a promise to “obey the laws of the British Government,” and Pickering notes that officials present at the ceremony prompted the Generals to substitute “Eng-kok” for the derogatory “Ang-mo” when referring to the British (p. 17). He concedes that these modifications were likely introduced in deference to his own presence as a foreign visitor, but argues that the underlying pattern of compliance is genuine.
Pickering’s political argument is the article’s most significant contribution. He contends that the Chinese population of the Straits Settlements—described as “the scum of the Empire,” speaking mutually unintelligible dialects, and culturally accustomed to deference to clan, village elders, or government—cannot be governed by British law alone. He explicitly reverses a position he had taken three years earlier in Fraser’s Magazine, where he had advocated for “exceptional and more stringent legislation”; having seen that the Government would not act, he now argues that the secret societies must be recognised and supervised by a trained staff of Chinese-speaking officials, because their abolition would remove the only existing check on “the thousands of the disorderly class of Chinese” (p. 8). He supports this with the legal framework of Orders in Council XIX of 1869 and V of 1877, which gave the colonial government control over the chiefs of the Hoeys (pp. 7–8).
Key Findings
- The Singapore Grand Lodge maintained a substantial building at Rochore where, twice yearly (25th of the 1st and 7th moons), the five ancestors were worshipped with feasts and theatricals by nine branches of the Ghee Hin Society (p. 2).
- The 333-question catechism, recited from memory by the Vanguard General over nearly an hour, constituted the core intellectual test of the ritual; Pickering notes it is “really astonishing to hear a clever Sien Hong give every answer and verse correctly, without referring to a Book” (p. 12).
- The oath formula, repeated three times by each candidate, explicitly incorporated obedience to British law and to the Registrars, Inspector General of Police, and Protector of Chinese, alongside the traditional pledge to “drive out the Chheng, and establish the Beng dynasty” (p. 16).
- Pickering records that forty years prior, the societies’ punishments were “carried out in their integrity,” including the beheading of intruders, and that a single member of the Kwan-te Society once released 75 brethren from jail; at the present time, “the Headmen dare not even use the Red Baton seriously” (p. 9).
- The Lodge furniture included a peck-measure (Tau) containing rice, 108 Ang cash, five flags (black, red, yellow, white, green), a sword-sheath, foot measure, scales, the “four precious things of the library,” and five hanks of silk thread, all symbolically arranged by the Sien-Seng (pp. 5–6).
- The “Red Boy” (Red Youth) at the Fiery Valley was described as having “slayed many victims” by his spear in Singapore, though Pickering frames this as a spiritual rather than literal killing (p. 3).
Conclusion
Pickering’s definitive historical takeaway is that the Chinese secret societies in the Straits Settlements have undergone a functional metamorphosis: their anti-Qing liturgical core is preserved as cultural ritual, but their operative purpose has shifted to mutual protection and legal redress within the colonial framework. He concludes that the colonial state’s interest is best served not by suppression but by formal recognition and supervised integration of these societies into the administrative apparatus, arguing that no alternative mechanism exists for governing a population whose internal social architecture is fundamentally incompatible with British legal individualism (pp. 8–9).
Context
- The article was read before the Straits Branch of the Royal Asiatic Society on 9 June 1879 and forms Part II of a two-part series; Part I (in the first number of the Journal) covered the origin of the Thien-Te-Hui and the burning of the Siau-Lim monastery.
- Pickering explicitly defers to M. Schlegel’s published account of the Thien-Te-Hui as it existed in China and “semi-civilised Countries,” positioning his own contribution as an ethnography of the Straits Settlements variant rather than a reconstruction of the Chinese original (p. 1).