Picture of Eu Chin Street at Tiong Bahru. Photograph by author Shawn Seah.

Anyone who has tried researching or writing family history will tell you that the past is not always clear. As I’ve often written, the past is shrouded by the mists of time. And it is probably a truism that no one gets everything perfectly right in documenting family history or tracing genealogies.

One perspective is that we should try our best to refer to credible, written, or documented sources. This is often easier said than done.

Moreover, it is challenging or inconvenient to check or confirm facts that we, or our close ones, might hold dear and true. Memories are important, but people hold different memories of the same event or look at the past through different lenses.

That is why looking at credible, written, or documented sources is important, especially when there are conflicting accounts of what happened in the past. This is normal.

This page was set up to share accounts or questions I’ve encountered along with evidence I have found, and you, as the reader, can decide for yourself on whether these facts bear out (or not).

Where necessary, facts have been balanced by setting out some context or stating the different arguments for and against. In fact-checking, I have also striven to be objective, logical, reasonable, frank, and fair, as far as possible.

Thank you for reading “Fact or Fiction”.

*** ***

Fact or Fiction: Seah Eu Chin was not involved in mediating the 1854 riots. It was others who contributed instead. More generally, Seah Eu Chin did not mediate during riots or play a major role.

The facts suggest that Seah Eu Chin did in fact play a major part in mediating conflicts and riots in Singapore, including in 1854.

Yes, other people did contribute to mediation and negotiation during those terrible times. But Seah Eu Chin played a major part alongside others in mediating conflicts and riots.

In the book One Hundred Years’ History of the Chinese in Singapore (1923), Sir Song Ong Siang wrote that Seah Eu Chin “rendered many valuable services to the Government, especially during the great Hokien [sic] and Teochew riot in 1854.” He also stated categorically that Seah Eu Chin was “quite fearless during those troublous times” and “used to go with the Sepoys who escorted the conveyance of food to his plantations.”

Separately, an 1849 “Free Press” extract in the news was cited as stating:

“The police having found themselves unable to compose the differences existing between the different societies of Chinese in Singapore, which for some time past have been producing scenes of riot and violence, Seah Eu Chin has been called in to their assistance and, we are glad to hear, has succeeded in effecting a treaty of peace, though probably not of friendship amongst the belligerents, whom he bound over in heavy penalties to keep the peace in time to come.”

The articles of the time focus (as was the flavour of the day) on the British and Europeans, but consider the evidence:

The Singapore Free Press and Mercantile Advertiser (12 May 1854) reported that: “About 70 gentlemen, comprising the greater part of the European residents and a few of the Commanders of merchant vessels lying in the harbour, were sworn in.” This was on 6 May 1854 (Saturday), the day after the riot started.

Even earlier on 8 May 1854, the Straits Times stated that: “Between sixty and seventy gentlemen, including members of the Bar, the medical profession, and all the merchants who are not Justices of the Peace, offered themselves and were sworn in as Special Constables.”

Despite the Eurocentricity of the articles, note that Seah Eu Chin was both a middleman trader as well as a merchant who was not a Justice of the Peace in 1854 (he was appointed later).

The same articles all stated that the military was also called in and fought against the rioters. And for anyone who has attended my talks, I will usually tell them that the military played a much larger role in quelling the riots than negotiation!

There are a lot more materials to go on, but I think the points are clear.

During Singapore’s early days, there were many riots. Chinese community leaders like Seah Eu Chin (and this does not preclude others, of course) stepped up to help stop the violence. Many people played a part, together.

*** ***

Fact or Fiction: Some people refer to the “mystery” of the tomb of Seah Eu Chin at Alexandra Lot 11-28, Grave No. 9. Was he buried there? Some Seah descendants thought so. However, no remains or inscription of names of descendants were found when the tomb was exhumed by mistake by a Mr Teo Ah Kow in 1935. So was Seah Eu Chin buried at (i) Alexandra or (ii) Grave Hill at Toa Payoh?

The facts clearly indicate that Teochew pioneer Seah Eu Chin’s grave was at Toa Payoh.

According to the Straits Times Weekly Issue (27 September 1883), Seah Eu Chin’s burial was to take place in the “Family Plantation on Thompson’s [today: Thomson] Road”. In my book, Seah Eu Chin: His Life & Times, I provided a few strong reasons why this is likely the case, cited from public sources reporting what the Goh brothers said. (They were the intrepid explorers who rediscovered the magnificent tomb.)

For example, Raymond Goh determined the generation name (the traditional Chinese practice where family members of the same generation use the same characters in their names), corroborated it in an imperial edict he found, and confirmed that the tomb at Grave Hill did indeed belong to Seah Eu Chin.

The Singapore Free Press and Mercantile Advertiser (Weekly) (30 March 1905) also stated that Mrs Seah Eu Chin was buried at the private family burial ground off Thomson Road. This grand procession was in fact witnessed by many, including European residents of Singapore who were invited.

The Singapore Free Press and Mercantile Advertiser (6 May 1919) also reported that the coffin of Mrs Seah Liang Seah, the wife of Seah Eu Chin’s second son, would leave for Thomson Road. It was once again stated: “Seah Eu Chin’s family burial ground”.

While we can all appreciate a conspiracy theory every now and then, the fact is that there is no mystery here: Seah Eu Chin was not buried at Alexandra.

*** ***

Fact or Fiction: Some people say that the Ngee Ann Kongsi was founded by Seah Eu Chin and a Mr Teo. Others say that the Ngee Ann Kongi’s founding was driven by other people. Who founded the Ngee Ann Kongsi? Was Seah Eu Chin a founding member?

The Ngee Ann Kongsi (Incorporation) Ordinance 1933 stated in its preamble (emphasis mine):

“Whereas in or about the year 1845 the late Seah Eu Chin a Teochew Merchant in Singapore and 12 other Teochew Merchants of Singapore (hereinafter referred to as “the Founders”) of the 12 Sehnhs of clans Lim, Heng, Tan, Quek, Low, Chia, Goh, Teo, Yeo, Ng, Sim and Chua respectively, subscribed, collected and established funds for the promotion, propagation and observance of the doctrines, ceremonies, rites and customs of the religion or religions (other than the Christian religion) commonly professed or maintained by the Teochew Community in Singapore and for such other charitable purposes for the benefit of the members in Singapore of the Teochew Community who originated from the 8 Districts (hereinafter referred to as “the said Eight Districts”) following, viz: The Teo Ann District, Theng Hai District, Teo Yeonh District, Kit Yeonh District, Jeow Pheng District, Phow Leng District, Hui Lye District and Nam Oh District of the Kwangtung Province of China as the Founders in their discretion thought fit to assist or contribute to:

And whereas the Founders established a society (hereinafter referred to as “the said Society”) in Singapore called or known as “The Ngee Ann Kongsi” for the purposes hereinbefore mentioned and for the purposes of administering and managing the properties purchased with such funds and the income derived in respect thereof and the said Seah Eu Chin and others of the Founders were the first trustees of the said Society…”

On the available evidence, Seah Eu Chin formally established the Ngee Ann Kongsi with 12 other leaders. Consider also the fact that he was the first President of the Ngee Ann Kongsi. Therefore, Seah Eu Chin can be called a founder, co-founder, or even a founding father of the Ngee Ann Kongsi.

These facts are widely acknowledged, including in books like Sumiko Tan’s Ngee Ann Kongsi: Into the Next Millennium (Singapore: Ngee Ann Kongsi).

*** ***

Fact or Fiction: Seah Wah Kim was the daughter of Seah Liang Seah.

The facts show that Seah Wah Kim was the daughter of Seah Peck Seah.

According to the Straits Echo on 8 January 1909, the “preliminary ceremony in connection with the wedding of Miss Seah Wah Kim, sixth daughter of Mr. and Mrs. Sea [sic] Peck Seah, of 55, High Street, with Mr. Tan Boon Yong, son of Mr. Tan Swee Kee of 42, High Street, was commenced yesterday afternoon.”

The Singapore Free Press and Mercantile Advertiser (Weekly), 7 January 1909 stated “Miss Seah Wah Kim, who is the sixth daughter of Mr and Mrs Seah Peck Seah, of 55 High Street, is the future (the word “impending” is really more accurate) wife of Mr Tan Boon Yong, son of Mr Tan Swee Khee [sic], of 42 High Street”.

This marriage is corroborated from another public source on the passing of Mrs Seah Peck Seah, who reportedly passed away on 23 July 1933, at 8.10pm, at 40 Orchard Road, aged 69 years old. According to the Malaya Tribune on 25 July 1933, “Mrs Tan Boon Yong” was listed as one of Mrs Seah Peck Seah’s daughters.

It’s possible that the confusion could have stemmed from “Seah Wah Kee” (Kee, not Kim), who was in fact one of the daughters of Seah Liang Seah.

In fact, the name Seah Wah Kee is in the last will and testament of “Seah Liang Seah of Bendemeer, No. 850 Serangoon Road, Singapore Landowner, and Justice of the Peace”.

It is true that in several news articles in the 1900s, the words “Wah Kee” and “Wah Kim” were sometimes (not always) mixed up. Spelling errors did (and still do) take place. Transliteration of Teochew names is not easy as well.

However, the evidence clearly shows that they are two different people from two different sets of parents.

*** ***

Fact or Fiction: Seah Eu Chin was a “secret society leader” or a “gangster chief”.

No, Seah Eu Chin was not a secret society leader.

According to descendant Brandon Seah’s research, the similarity of the Ngee Ann Kongsi’s name to the Ngee Heng Kongsi has sometimes led to erroneous conclusions.

The Ngee Ann Kongsi is not a secret society. However, some do consider the Ngee Heng Kongsi a secret society or ritual brotherhood.

While secret societies were persecuted by colonial authorities and declared illegal, they were not organised crime or gangs as they are often depicted to be today.

Those societies of the past can be thought of as private order institutions (an argument I make in my book, Seah Eu Chin: His Life and Times.)

Avner Greif (2000) defines institutions as “a system of social factors – such as rules, beliefs, norms, and organisations – that guide, enable, and constrain the actions of individuals, thereby generating regularities of behaviour”. Private order institutions refer to institutions that do not rely on the state, as opposed to public institutions.

Arguably, the Ngee Heng could be viewed as a private order institution that organised plantation labour, with their own rules and regulations, and functioned as a mutual support society.

An interesting story comes from European criticism of Chinese jurors in the Grand Jury, in the Singapore Free Press and Mercantile Advertiser (12 September 1851). While implying that some Chinese jurors could be better at the English language, the writer singled out an unnamed Chinese juror, likely to be Seah Eu Chin:

Although the gentleman in question, from his position and well-known prudence, will it is to be hoped be able to resist the influences which operate so powerfully on the mass of our Chinese population, yet there are few of the natives of China resident in the Straits, of whom the same could be safely said. They are bound by ties and obligations amongst themselves which are in effect superior in force to any which the law can lay upon them.

While this writer was frank enough to suggest that Seah Eu Chin’s English left much to be desired, he recognised that Seah held a high position in society, possessed well-known prudence, and was hoped to not give in to pressures of secret societies.

Considering that the Europeans and Chinese were watching his every move, Seah Eu Chin was a (very) public community leader and not a secret society leader.

*** ***

Fact or Fiction: Did Seah Eu Chin take revenge against old village enemies when they came to Singapore?

In an oral history interview conducted in 1986, a Teochew named Heng Chiang Swee related a story told to him by his elders about Seah Chin Hin (which he claimed was Seah Eu Chin). According to this story, Seah Chin Hin returned to China to build houses, but people from stronger families in the village took advantage of him. When they came to Singapore, he was alleged to have treated them nicely by giving them sweets fried in pork fat and allowing them to eat without working for it. Eventually, these people died of ‘heatiness’. This was cited as proof of vengeance and revenge.

There is absolutely no proof for this very elaborate, fanciful, and unusual story.

Now, it is likely true that Seah Eu Chin was associated with his company and his business chop was Seah Chin Hin. He likely sent some funds to China or engaged traders or agents who went back to China. But nothing else holds up.

There is no known evidence that Seah Eu Chin returned to China.

There is no known evidence that people took advantage of him in China.

There is also no scientific basis to support the idea that people can die from eating ‘heaty’ food.

In contrast, there are many written public records of Seah Eu Chin’s charitable work, including his role in founding the Ngee Ann Kongsi, taking care of Teochew burial needs, mediating conflicts, and donating to public projects. On the balance of probabilities, this is very likely an old wives tale, a spurious claim not supported by evidence.

*** ***

Fact or Fiction: Did Seah Eu Chin cut off his queue or pigtail (“thau-chang”)?

The Manchu queue or pigtail was forcefully introduced by the Qing. While it was regarded by the Chinese as a badge of subservience, by the 19th century, it was already widely adopted.

Sharing an observation, a certain E. H. Parker in the China Mail was quoted in Pinang Gazette and Straits Chronicle (15 June 1904), stating that “Chinamen” set up cemeteries abroad only if they felt “permanently secure” in the new location:

“A cemetery means in effect also a Chinese wife, and a legitimate one, too; a solid home; investments; naturalisation; change in attire; but, strange to say, in spite of disloyalty to the dynasty, never the abandonment of the purely Manchu pigtail (emphasis mine).”

When the population of Swatow was required to adopt the coiffure, they hid their queues under cotton turbans, according to the Pinang Gazette and Straits Chronicle (6 December 1909). In fact, The Singapore Free Press and Mercantile Advertiser (30 January 1912) stated that:

“All males, however, under pain of death were ordered to adopt the Manchu queue, and also to shave the front of the head entirely, except during periods of mourning. Only in one (then only half conquered) part of China—the fierce region around Swatow—was this peremptory law in part resisted by adopting the device of wearing black turbans and twisting up the queue beneath: but even then in addressing a mandarin the turbaned individual was obliged always to “drop his hair.” To this very day the Swatow seamen and soldiers have tacitly been allowed to hide their pigtails…”

Following the Xinhai Revolution led by Sun Yat-Sen, the Qing Dynasty was overthrown by 1912 with the Emperor’s abdication and there were queue cutting movements. 

Since Seah Eu Chin was born in 1805 and passed away in 1883, he would likely have worn a queue. He would likely have kept it under a cotton headdress like other Teochews of his time.

As such, there is no evidence that suggests that Seah Eu Chin cut off his queue.

*** ***

Fact or Fiction: Are Teochews from the Teochew region in Southern China or from the Central Plains of China?

The second-largest Chinese community in Singapore, Singapore Teochews originated mainly from the Teochew region in Southern China. While many overseas Teochews, including Teochews in Singapore, refer to the land of their ancestors as Chaozhou (or Chaozhoufu), the area is known as Chaoshan region in Guangdong today.

These are general facts.

However, when people are asking whether Teochews are from Southern China or the Central Plains of China, they are looking at history and migration in terms of a longer timeframe.

To that question, the short answer is that we do not know for sure.

The longer answer is that there are two main hypotheses.

One major hypothesis circulating in mainland China and is widespread online is that there were waves of southward migration into southern China from the Central Plains. Large numbers of southern Fujian people subsequently settled in the Chaoshan area. Over a long period of time, this became the major population in the Chaoshan region, coming largely from Henan and Shanxi via Fujian. Because of geographical isolation and historical challenges in travelling, Teochews became a distinctive population with its own culture over time.

Currently, those who believe Fujian and Chaoshan populations are descendants of north-central Han Chinese argue from genealogical records, archeological discoveries, and even DNA studies (for example, “Y-Chromosome Evidence for Common Ancestry of Three Chinese Populations with a High Risk of Esophageal Cancer” in 2010).

However, the alternative hypothesis that Teochews were the first people in their own land also has some supporters. For example, Chinese civilisation is now thought to have more than a single point of origin and new archaeological findings are made from time to time. Historical arguments are revised every now and then.

One of the main historical arguments that Teochews were migrants was due to the use of a term “Hoklo” (literally: Fujian man), a label used by Western missionaries in late 19th and early 20th centuries that (sometimes) applied to Teochews. From this perspective, it was argued that “Hoklo” was a corruption of Chinese “Helao”, suggesting that Teochews were descendants of older Han Chinese from Henan.

However, the original usage of “Hoklo” was mainly referring to Hokkiens, whose dialect appears similar to Teochew to untrained ears. In fact, Teochews have not adopted the term. Moreover, in both Teochew and Hokkien, “Helao” is pronounced differently. Therefore, this argument might not hold water.

There is also no Teochew tradition or legend of an exodus from the Central Plains to Fujian, or from Fujian to Teochew, or both, which one would expect to see in traditional expressions or cultural forms, including oral storytelling, artwork, or Teochew opera.

As The Teochew Store blog stated correctly: “Not all information seen online is true.”

*** ***

Fact or Fiction: Seah Eu Chin was from Yuepu.

According to Sir Song Ong Siang in One Hundred Years’ History of the Chinese in Singapore:

“In 1823 Seah Eu Chin came to Singapore from Swatow. He was born in 1805 and lived in the village of Guek-po in the interior of Swatow within the sub-prefecture of Theng-hai.”

As Sir Song Ong Siang was using Teochew terms, like Guek-po, in my book Seah Eu Chin: His Life & Times, I transliterated the village of “Guek-po” as Yuepu and “Theng-hai” as Chenghai.

However, some think he came from Yupu (玉浦) instead of Yuepu (月浦). In fact, Yupu village (or Yupucun) is located around 50 to 60 kilometres away from Yuepu (or roughly an hour’s drive).

This is likely a typo, a transliteration issue, or a misunderstanding.

While “Yuepu” and “Yupu” do appear similar in English, evidence suggests that Seah Eu Chin was born in Yuepu.

First, according to the Seah clan genealogy book (zupu), Seah Eu Chin was listed in a family tree as stemming from Yuepu (月浦). I have seen the recorded family tree and the title of the zupu stated Yuepu.

Second, several Seah descendants have visited Seah Eu Chin’s ancestral grounds and can attest to the location. For example, descendant Sean Seah visited Yuepu, Shantou, China in 2014. He documented his visit in a public video called Search (寻). To watch Sean Seah’s video, please click here.

Third, in Teochew, Yue (月) would have been pronounced “Guek” (ghuêh8), whereas Yu (玉) would have been pronounced more closely to “Geg” (ghêg8), which sounds different.

Taking the evidence together, we can safely say that Seah Eu Chin came from Yuepu.

*** ***

Fact or Fiction: Gambier was chewed with sireh as part of local or Straits Chinese culture.

Yes, this appears to be a fact.

According to “Chinese Topics in Malaya” in The Straits Times on 3 December 1931, Chinese ladies (in this case likely referring specifically to local or Straits Chinese ladies):

“Their recreation often takes the form of motoring around the town; they tie themselves down to the table for prolonged periods indulging in a game known as “Chee Kee,” [sic] during which time a large quantity of “sireh” (a sort of green leaf, to which is added a tiny piece of gambier, betel-nuts and lime) is ruminated. A small lump of Javanese tobacco is also used for scrubbing the teeth, and is allowed to stay in the upper lip.”

A separate article from the late 19^th century called “Institutions in a Native State”, in The Singapore Free Press and Mercantile Advertiser (Weekly), 12 March 1895 also reported:

“Water is drunk after the meal by the younger members of the family and tea by the elder. After which the company settle down to betel chewing. A little lime is spread on the sireh leaf, to this is added a morsel of gambier and another of areca-nut (betel), fold it all up and put it in your mouth—and if you are a European you will soon—yes, very soon, expectorate it. Two or three leaves is considered quite sufficient at a sitting, Javanese tobacco being chewed after the appetite for sireh has been appeased.”

And according to “Malayan Nights’ Entertainments” in The Singapore Free Press and Mercantile Advertiser (Weekly), 13 October 1910, it was put very elegantly that:

“The sireh leaf is but a green herb; the betel a stony grey nut; the lime is white and meaningless; the gambier brown and distasteful, yet these four combined blood-redden the lips, brighten the eye, stir the heart and brain and cast over all the film of peace and content.”

According to the Peranakan Museum (2017), “tempat sireh” (sireh set) was the Baba Malay term for a box with a set of containers used to store those ingredients. Beyond its role in sireh chewing, tempat sireh also played an important ceremonial role in Peranakan Chinese rites, including weddings.

In fact, there were beautiful sireh sets made to contain ingredients used for betel nut chewing. As an example, the article “Valuable Collection of Malay Metal Work” in The Straits Budget, on 9 September 1909, stated:

“There is an excellent collection of sireh sets, in silver, copper and, sometimes, with gold admixture or encrustation. There are usually three little boxes to each set, for the reception of betel nut, lime and gambier, respectively, but occasionally five may be found in a set.”

From various sources, it is clear that gambier played a part in betel nut chewing, which was a recreational or social activity, with or without tobacco, in Malaya at the time.

*** ***

Fact or Fiction: Seah Peck Seah had many daughters.

Yes, this appears to be a fact.

The number of daughters was not consistently reported in the news, but Seah Peck Seah had at least eight daughters.

According to the Malaya Tribune on 25 July 1933, Mrs Seah Peck Seah (nee Madam Tan Soo Heok) left behind seven daughters: (i) Mrs Tan Cheng Joey, (ii) Mrs Tan Boon Kiah, (iii) Mrs Low Peng Soy, (iv) Mrs Tan Boon Yong, (v) Mrs Tan Chin Boo, (vi) Mrs Sim Khee Mui, and (vii) Mrs Tan Kee Choe. From this news article, one can see that there were at least seven daughters in 1933.

However, according to the Malaya Tribune on 12 December 1916, there was an eighth daughter in 1916.

There was a very large attendance at Mr. and Mrs. Seah Peck Seah’s house, 55 High-st. yesterday, in honour of the marriage of their eighth daughter, who was robed in her bridal costume. The family keeps up the old style of Chinese marriage custom. The bridal offerings and the handsome dress of the bride were a source of much admiration. Mr. W. E. Hooper proposed the health of the bride and her parents, the toast being very heartily drunk. A wayang was held in the courtyard, and the guests were right royally entertained.  

The wedding of the eighth daughter was also reported in the Singapore Free Press and Mercantile Advertiser on 12 December 1916; Pinang Gazette and Straits Chronicle, 14 December 1916; and The Straits Echo (Mail Edition), 20 December 1916.

However, what could account for this discrepancy in numbers?

Could it be a mistake in reporting? That is one possibility.

The likeliest answer is that, in those days, mortality was higher than it is today.

In June 2024, Singapore’s Department of Statistics reported that the life expectancy at birth of Singaporeans was 83 years old. In the late 1800s and early 1900s, lifespans were shorter, even as the Seah family was blessed with relatively longer lifespans than others. Therefore, it is likely that there was at least one death in the family before 1933 and the newspapers simply reported the numbers of daughters at the time.

However, what is undeniable is that Seah Peck Seah had many daughters.

*** ***

Copyright © 2023 by Shawn Seah

Webpage updated: 18 July 2025

All rights reserved