槟榔屿嘉应会馆会议记录第二册槟榔屿嘉应会馆出版(1930-1947)
2目录目录 ...................................................................................................................槟榔屿嘉应会馆会长序 - 拿督刘竹山 ...............................................................编辑前言 - 拿督邓俊涛博士 ..............................................................................石与魂的传承：槟城大伯公街嘉应会馆会所历史 - 郭贤福 ..............................A Legacy of Stone and Spirit The History of the Association’s Premises at King Street, Penang - Bernard Kok .....远见、应变与复兴的传承 - 郭贤福 .................................................................A Legacy Of Foresight, Adaptation And Renewal - Bernard Kok .................................南洋华侨的百年回望卢振华访谈录 - 覃勓温 ...........................................................................战火下的家族记忆追悼先伯父陈集滔先生 - 陈慧君 .............................................................海禁破浪槟城路：嘉应人的世纪海缘 - 郭贤福 ...............................................导读 - 陈慧君 .................................................................................................中华民国十九年一月八日 (1930.01.08) ..............................................中华民国十九年四月二十日 (1930.04.20) ..............................................中华民国十九年六月六日 (1930.06.06) ..............................................中华民国十九年六月三十日 (1930.06.30) ..............................................中华民国十九年八月二十三日 (1930.08.23) ..............................................中华民国十九年九月七日 (1930.09.07) ..............................................中华民国十九年十一月五日 (1930.11.05) ..............................................2579277782899497135141145151156161166172
3中华民国十九年十一月二十二日 (1930.11.22) ...............................................中华民国十九年十二月二十日 (1930.12.20) ...............................................中华民国二十年元月十日 (1931.01.10) ...............................................中华民国二十年二月七日 (1931.02.07) ...............................................中华民国二十年六月二十日 (1931.06.20) ...............................................中华民国二十年九月九日 (1931.09.09) ...............................................中华民国二十年十二月十二日 (1931.12.12) ...............................................中华民国二十一年元月十六日 (1932.01.16) ...............................................中华民国二十一年二月二十五日 (1932.02.25) ...............................................中华民国二十一年六月六日 (1932.06.06) ...............................................中华民国二十一年十二月十一日 (1932.12.11) ...............................................中华民国二十一年十二月十八日 (1932.12.18) ...............................................【缺民国二十一年十二月十八日后(1932.12.18)至民国二十二年七月二十二日(1933.07.22) 之间的会议记录】中华民国二十二年七月二十二日 (1933.07.22) ...............................................中华民国二十二年十二月十六日 (1933.12.16) ...............................................中华民国二十二年十二月二十八日(1933.12.28) ...............................................中华民国二十三年一月二十一日 (1934.01.21) ...............................................中华民国二十三年二月二十日 (1934.02.20) ...............................................中华民国二十三年二月二十六日 (1934.02.26) ...............................................中华民国二十三年三月十八日 (1934.03.18) ...............................................中华民国二十三年十二月二日 (1934.12.02) ...............................................中华民国二十三年十二月八日 (1934.12.08) ...............................................中华民国二十四年元月十三日 (1935.01.13) ...............................................中华民国二十四年二月十三日 (1935.02.13) ...............................................中华民国二十四年六月二十日 (1935.06.20) ...............................................176181186191196200205211216221227235241248256266272277282289295300304307
4中华民国二十四年十二月八日 (1935.12.08) ...............................................中华民国二十五年一月十六日 (1936.01.16) ...............................................中华民国二十五年三月二十四日 (1936.03.24) ...............................................中华民国二十五年九月八日 (1936.09.08) ...............................................中华民国二十五年十二月七日 (1936.12.07) ...............................................中华民国二十五年十二月二十四日(1936.12.24) ...............................................中华民国二十六年一月二十三日 (1937.01.23) ...............................................【缺民国二十六年一月二十三日后 (1937.01.23) 至民国卅四年九月二十日(1945.09.20) 之间的会议记录】中华民国卅四年九月二十日 (1945.09.20) ...............................................中华民国卅四年九月三十日 (1945.09.30) ...............................................中华民国卅四年十月七日 (1945.10.07) ...............................................中华民国卅四年十一月十五日 (1945.11.15) ...............................................中华民国卅四年十二月二十九日 (1945.12.29) ...............................................中华民国卅五年一月二十八日 (1946.01.28) ...............................................中华民国卅五年三月二十六日 (1946.03.26) ...............................................中华民国卅五年七月十二日 (1946.07.12) ...............................................中华民国卅五年九月三十日 (1946.09.30) ...............................................中华民国卅六年一月十五日 (1947.01.15) ...............................................中华民国卅六年七月十三日 (1947.07.13) ...............................................中华民国卅六年十一月十四日 (1947.11.14) ...............................................中华民国卅六年十二月七日 (1947.12.07) ...............................................中华民国卅六年十二月十四日 (1947.12.14) ...............................................312318321324328335338343348360368374379385391396402407415424436
5序拿督刘竹山槟榔屿嘉应会馆会长《槟榔屿嘉应会馆会议记录（第二册）》收录自民国十九年（1930）至民国三十六年（1947）共十八年的珍贵史料。其时世界局势动荡，中华烽火不断，南洋亦深受波及；会馆在这一时期经历重修屋宇、筹赈原乡、处理会务纷争，以至日据时期的停顿与战后重建，皆展现了海外客家乡团在时代巨轮下的坚韧与担当。除会议记录本身外，本册亦尽可能修复1930至1947年因时局与战乱造成的 “缺口年代”：呈现战前会馆选举与议事机制的严谨、跨国声援与赈济的承担、夜学教育的延续，以及战后积极复苏会馆运作，注入新动力，迈向百年发展。会议记录原稿多以毛笔书写，字迹模糊、内容残缺尤为常见。1937年前后因形势敏感，部分记录被撕毁，再加上日据三年八个月会务全面中断，形成长达数年的史料空白。今日能重新辑录成册，实赖多位同仁的齐心努力。拿督邓俊涛博士负责释读毛笔原稿，逐页辨识难字、厘清句读，完成本册打字初稿，为全书奠定根基，功不可没。陈慧君女士全程校对中文文稿，确保篇章内容确实、文笔流畅；其所撰《战火下的家族记忆——追悼先伯父陈集滔先生》一文，陈述1941年年杪日机空袭槟城惨烈情景的一幕，为本册增添一段动人的时代见证。
6陈楚君女士审阅英文文稿，调整语气、逻辑与术语，完善双语文本。覃勓温先生搜集旧报章、补正缺失年代之史实，并记录卢文友先生的宝贵口述，使战前南洋华人社会风貌、筹赈救国热潮及青年返华的背景得以补入，为本册增添跨越南洋与中国的独特史料。本册主编副会长郭贤福律师广查碑刻、地契、先贤牌位与旧报章，并协助采访、资料整合与章节衔接。他撰写中英文稿，并负责统筹各方资源。郭律师心无旁骛，从编整至出版工作，亲力亲为，使本册得以圆满问世。本册虽名为“会议记录”，内容实已超越会务记述，展现一代嘉应人在异乡立足、互助自强的集体记忆，亦为槟城华社历史中不可或缺的一页。愿此书使后人得窥昔日会务之风范，鉴往知来，承继乡贤精神，续写嘉应人在槟城的百年篇章。谨以此序，致敬先贤，留存史迹。
7编辑前言拿督邓俊涛博士《槟榔屿嘉应会馆会议记录（第二册）》所收录之会议记录，时间自1930年（民国十九年）1月8日起，至1947年（民国三十六年）12月14日止，前后长达十八年，共记录会议五十二次。然其中1932年12月18日至1933年7月23日之会议记录佚失，原因已不可考。另据前辈所述，自1937年1月23日至槟岛沦陷（1941年12月19日）止，部分记录因内容与当时政局相抵触而被撕毁，再加上日据时期会馆停止运作，亦无任何会议纪录存留。此十八年的光景，正值七七事变以迄二战结束之历史风云，会务受时局的变化，影响甚巨。1933年会馆领导层出现重大变动。长期担任总理之李采成君，于同年12月16日大众会议上提出辞呈。虽经众人力挽，仍坚持去意。会馆随即以拈票法选出古国耀君为继任总理。然而在同年12月28日之特别大众会议上，古君来函辞职，态度坚决。经长时间讨论后，另行票选，熊燮廷君以众望所归之姿当选。由此可见，当时之董事会选举并非一帆风顺，而是经过多番波折方得定案。经费方面，会馆经济历来拮据。会馆产业有限，虽有店屋出租，惟当时经济萧条，收租殊不容易。此际祖籍国频遭水灾、战乱，或有兴学建设之募捐活动 （如赈济华南水灾、梅江中学及畬江中学校舍建设等），五属乡亲均本于乡谊，踊跃乐捐，虽处困境亦尽力而为。会馆建筑亦因年久失修，亟需重修。1934年2月26日大众会议议决发起筹款
8整修会所；1936年9月8日董事会议再度组织筹募委员会，推展重修工作。会馆于1941年7月重建落成后，定每年七月二十日为周年纪念日。会员登记制度方面，会馆自成立以来似无正式会员册。1934年3月，华民政务司来函要求汇报会员人数，会馆遂登报通知五属乡亲前来登记。至1936年9月，正式登记会员已逾七十人。战后会馆亦积极征求新会员，至1947年12月，会员人数已增至456名。会馆管理层组织架构亦随时代有所调整：总理一职更名为会长，并增设副会长；经理改称司理，办祭改为干事。每届职员包括：会长、副会长、司理、财政、查数、中文牍、英文牍各一人，干事四人，董事十二人（共二十三人），另设候补五人；外埠董事（勿洞、居林、威省、浮罗、吉打、合艾）共十人。在战乱期间，李采成、古秀阶、梁德权、何建珊等多位有功董事先后辞世；另有十六位五属乡亲在日据时期罹难，殊为哀痛。本会馆为慰英灵，于1946年春祭设立纪念牌位于会馆神龛，以彰往哲。为加强与各界之联络，会馆于1947年成立嘉宾俱乐部，以扩大服务乡亲之功能。在1930至1947年之间，曾先后担任总理或会长者，包括梁汉生、李采成、熊燮廷及梁继琼诸君。他们以乡谊为念，勤恳奉献，带领会馆渡过动荡时期，功绩卓著，深为后辈所敬仰。
9石与魂的传承t 槟城大伯公街 t 嘉应会馆会所历史郭贤福第一章t 起源与最初的土地授予（1801–1842）本会位于槟城乔治市东区第20段561号地（旧称第XX地段第70号），面积约为3,027平方英尺，也就是现在的大伯公街22号的会所（下称“22号产业”），是于1801年11月2日，由时任槟榔屿总督的乔治·利斯爵士（Sir George Leith, Bart.），奉孟加拉威廉堡总督委员会之命，无偿授予本会。于此同时，会所右侧邻居“中国阿文”，想必也是一位地位显赫的人物，亦无偿获授毗邻的第XX地段第71号（今第20段562号），面积约1,905平方英尺，也就是现在的大伯公街24号（下称“24号产业”）1。第二章t 家族继承与产权转移（1842–1895）中国阿文是那个时代典型的华裔南来谋生、经商的代表：少年离乡背井，远1 见本书第51页，附录1。
10赴威尔士亲王岛谋生，晚年积累了一定的财富后，回归故土。1841年8月7日，他的遗孀Nonia Boo——极有可能是出生于威尔士亲王岛并一直居住于此的本地人——在向槟榔屿、新加坡与马六甲司法法院申请遗产管理书时声明：中国阿文早已放弃居民身份离开该岛，并约于二十五年前（即1826年左右）在中国逝世2。同日，她正式获得了丈夫的遗产的管理书3。1842年9月7日，Nonia Boo通过一份契据，将24号产业连同地上所建的房产——当时为一座木屋（下称“木屋”）——转让予她的儿子Loh Yu Foong、女儿Tan Seoo Neo及其两位女婿Fong Eng Quee与Chin Check Cheong，由他们四人共同持有，各占相等且不可分割的产权份额4。他们之间的关系颇为复杂，具体出现以下几点：(a) Nonia Boo的儿子与女儿姓氏不同，这表明她可能在中国阿文离开威尔士 亲王岛后改嫁；(b) Fong Eng Quee与Chin Check Cheong均被称作Nonia Boo的女婿，但记录 显示她仅有一名女儿；(c) Chin Check Cheong的女儿名为Tan Quee Neoh，乍看之下，父女二人的并不相同——父亲姓“Chin”，女儿却姓“Tan”。然而，实际上“Chin”与“Tan”在中文中均对应同一个汉字“陈”。“Chin”多见于粤语或客家话的拼音方式，而“Tan”则是闽南语的拼写方式。这种因方言差异导致的罗马拼音不同，导致了表面上的姓氏不一致，从而进一步加深了对亲属关系的混淆。至于Tan Seoo Neo是否为中国阿文亲生女儿，由于没有她去世时的年龄或出生年份的记录，因此无法确认。如果她在中国阿文离开威尔士亲王岛之前出生，则有可能是他的女儿，但目前没有确切记载他离岛的具体时间，但同样也有可2 见本书第53页，附录2。3 见本书第55页，附录3。4 见本书第58页，附录4。
11能她是Nonia Boo在之后婚姻或其他关系中所生的孩子，或者，此处所称的“女儿”并非指生物学上的血缘关系，而是指一种社会性或象征意义上的称谓（例如养女、继女或干女儿）。迄今为止，并没有确切证据显示中国阿文在槟城留有后嗣。Nonia Boo的儿子Loh Yu Foong，约于1863或1864年去世，年仅十六岁，由此推算他出生于1847或1848年。他出生的时间与中国阿文约于1826年逝世相隔近二十年，从时间上判断，显然不可能是中国阿文的亲生儿子。Tan Seoo Neo是Fong Eng Quee的妻子，Loh Yu Foong的母亲，约于1866年7月12日之前的五年逝世，即约于1861年逝世。她去世后，她名下所持24号产业四分之一产权由丈夫Fong Eng Quee继承。同年7月12日，Fong Eng Quee一份契据，将将自己原有的四分之一产权，连同从已故妻子处继承的四分之一产权，一并转让予他的儿子Fong Luan Pow，使后者取得该产业共计二分之一的未分割产权5。Chin Check Cheong约于1865年逝世。他的独生女暨唯一在世的子女Tan Quee Neoh，于1895年获得她父亲的遗产管理书。Tan Quee Neoh最终通过以下途径取得24号产业的完整产权：(a) 根据一份订立于1888年4月11日的契据，Fong Luan Pow将他名下所持有 的22号产业二分之一的产权出售予 Tan Quee Neoh；(b) 继承她父亲Chin Check Cheong所拥有的该产业四分之一的产权；以及(c) 依据当时有效的法律，通过逆权占有的方式取得了Loh Yu Foong名下所 持有的该地段剩余的四分之一产权6。我们查阅到，一份由斯普劳斯法官于1923年6月11日，在槟城海峡殖民地最高法院就1923年第326号诉讼所作出的庭令7显示，当时本会的受托人Yeoh Tek Sin, Yeong Ah Boo, Lee Tean Hee, Leong Kim Fee, Heoh Kean Ung, Lee Ah Pin, Pung Sam Hup, Cheah Seong Yoke, Khoo Yoon Kin, Cheah Tar Sin, Cheong Ah 5 见本书第62页，附录5。6 见本书第66页，附录6。7 见《槟榔屿嘉应会馆会议记录》第一册 (1921–1929年) 第xxix页。
12Cheap, Lee Leong Nghee, Gneow Seow Fat, Choong Yoong Hean, Lim Him Tong, Foo Koey Yen, Ung Boon Geow, Neoh Kee Neong 及Lee Ah Pow，于1895年3月23日依据契据（注册编号155卷XIX\/1895）自Tan Quee Neoh手中购得24号产业。遗憾的是，尽管其他相关文件，包括1801年11月2日授予中国阿文的地契尚存，但上述的关键契据原件却未能在本会档案中找到。因此，我们无法确定本会先贤当年购入该产业的所支付的款额，也无从得知契据中是否有载述1895年时地上建筑物的性质与状况。正因如此，1842年所描述的木屋是否曾进行过任何改建或变动，后人根本无从得知。同样地，22号产业的会所原本建筑形式与特征，至今仍不明确。根据1955年7月20日本会董事会所立、现今悬挂于会所一楼墙上的<槟榔屿嘉应会馆重建落成纪念碑>8记载，原建筑是以庙宇风格建造的，共两层：上层安奉同乡先贤的牌位，下层供奉关圣帝君。然而，此座庙宇式建築的确切兴建年份，至今仍无从考证。第三章t 首次修缮与扮演的社会角色（1860–1895）战后曾任本会会长的梁继琼先生，于1950年7月23日撰写的一篇文章9中提及，根据当年会馆的档案，22号产业的会所曾于1860年进行修缮。可惜的是该档案现已散佚。他又提及，彼时22号产业的地段尚未经政府勘测丈量。同样地，1955年的纪念碑也有记载，本会会所10于1860年由黄公鉴铭与古公永順等人11的倡導下，首次进行修缮。然而，该碑文并未描述此次修缮的具体内容。根据记载于22号产业的地段授地契约第二页12、日期为1860年2月28日的8 会所保存的最早书面记录为1921年8月27日的会议记录。该纪念碑所依据的信息来源尚不明确，其中部分细节——例如会所建筑的外观形制——可能经由曾目睹早期建筑面貌的会员口耳相传而来。9 见《槟榔屿嘉应会馆会议记录》第一册 (1921–1929年) 第xix页，《槟榔屿嘉应会馆之沿革历略》。10 须指出的是，第562号地段系于1895年购入。因此，所提及的会所必定是大伯公街22号的产业。11 如前所述，该纪念牌所依据的信息来源至今仍不明确。12 见《槟榔屿嘉应会馆会议记录》第一册 (1921–1929年) 第xxiii页。
13管理委员会委任书，当时本会会务是由Cu Ah Shim、Wong Ah Shim、Chiah Ah Chim、Ciu Ah Rgi、Leong Ah Chak、Yah Ah Ng、Li Ah Chen及Lu Ah Ngi八人组成的管理委员会负责。值得注意的是，黄鉴銘与古永顺并非该管理委员会成员。1955年的纪念碑与梁继琼先生文章皆有记载，会所于1892年再次进行修缮13。梁先生进一步指出，这次的修缮是由谢益卿14与古允卿领导推动。然而，与此前的修缮一样，文献并没有记载修缮的范围与细节。梁先生在同一篇文章中也有提及，当时会馆同时设立了疗养所，以照顾患病的同乡。在那个时期，许多来自中国华南地区的华人，或被招募为契约劳工，或遭诱骗“卖猪仔”，远赴海峡殖民地谋生，其中部分人既未在当地成家，也未能返回故土，及至年老体衰，孤苦无依，缺乏生活照料。本会秉持对同乡的深切关怀与责任，竭力扶助有需要的乡亲，因而设立疗养所，以保障他们晚年的生活。1895年，本会在购入24号产业后，随即对该地段上的房屋进行修缮，并改建为疗养所。据梁继琼先生的记述，这次的修缮费用逾二千余金15。据悉，该疗养所当时是从22号产业迁至24号产业。第四章t 教育与文化事业（1921–1927）进入20世纪后，本会最早有关修缮会所的正式记录见于1921年8月27日举行的会员大会会议记录。然而，该记录中并没有明确说明“会所”究竟仅指22号产业，抑或同时包括24号产业。根据记载，该物业当时被描述为“污秽不堪，破坏日甚”16。这些情况可能促成了疗养所于1924年在运营近三十三年后关闭。据梁继琼先13 如前所述，该纪念牌所依据的信息来源至今仍不明确。14 谢益卿 (1820–1914)，字双玉，原籍广东省梅县松口镇铜盘村，是谢梦池之父。他二十多岁时南来东南亚，最初落脚于荷属婆罗洲(今印度尼西亚)的坤甸，后将事业拓展至英属马来亚(今马来西亚与新加坡)的矿业、商业及实业领域。凭借这些产业，他建立起庞大的商业网络，成为19世纪末至20世纪初东南亚客家华侨中的杰出领袖人物。15 目前尚不确定1895年所提及的“金”是指西班牙银元还是墨西哥银元，因为海峡殖民地元(Straits dollar)直至1898年才正式发行。16 见《槟榔屿嘉应会馆会议记录》第一册（1921–1929年）第1页。
14生的记述，该疗养所的设施与建筑被发现有碍卫生，且其管理面临诸多困难。鉴于疗养所即将关闭，本会于1923年议决善用原有空间，设立阅报室，供同乡们在闲暇时阅读报刊，以增广见闻并增进乡谊。该阅报室于1924年正式启用。与此同时，本会也开办夜校，为失学青年提供学习机会，使他们得以接受教育、继续进修。然而，由于师资匮乏，夜校不久后便停办。会馆通过上述措施，坚持服务社群，体现了客家人“崇文重教、敦亲睦邻”的精神传统。第五章t 走向重建（1927–1936）在1921年首次提出修缮事宜四年后，会所的修缮问题再次于1925年10月15日举行的会员大会上被提上议程17。会上建议聘请绘图师负责绘制修缮图纸，并估算工程费用。同时建议通过向居住于槟城以外的同乡以募捐的方式筹集所需资金。然而，直至1927年1月13日举行的会员大会18，相关修缮工作才取得实质性进展，会议最终通过了修缮方案。工程费用将由各地资本家、商号及同乡的捐款共同承担。由徐杏初先生19所拟定的设计图亦获得正式通过。重建会所的构想可能早有商议，但最早见于正式记录的是1927年4月16日会员大会的会议记录20。当时尚未决定工程属于修缮抑或全面重建，具体方案将取决于募捐款项的多寡。可以合理推断，由于全面重建成本较高，唯有在筹得足够资金的情况下才会予以实施。在1927年6月6日会员大会21上，会议指出，修缮会所是当务之急，应尽快成立管理组织，并开展筹款工作。17 见《槟榔屿嘉应会馆会议记录》第一册（1921–1929年）第129页。18 见《槟榔屿嘉应会馆会议记录》第一册（1921–1929年）第184页。19 徐杏初先生是槟榔屿嘉应会馆会员。20 见《槟榔屿嘉应会馆会议记录》第一册（1921–1929年）第194页。21 见《槟榔屿嘉应会馆会议记录》第一册 (1921-1929年) 第199页。
15在随后的几个月里，召开了多次会议和讨论，商议重建计划。然而，由于全球经济大萧条爆发，该项目最终被迫暂停。在1934年2月26日举行的会员大会22上报告指出，谢仲凯先生23与梁应权先生共获得数千元的认捐。此外，各地华侨社群亦相继认捐或捐款，使认捐总额逾一万元。然而，谢仲凯先生已于前一年辞去修整会馆总理职务。尽管这些认捐令人鼓舞，但是工程并未立即展开。根据<槟榔屿嘉应会馆重建落成年纪念碑>24记载，该重建项目直至1936年才重新启动。李采成先生及其团队不辞辛劳，奔走于英属马来亚及泰国各地，向同乡募捐经费，以推动会所重建工作。1936年9月3日，《星洲日报》报导了本会的募款宣言25。该宣言内容如下：“吾嘉应有会馆於槟城，始於何时，创自何入，年代遽湮，今未能攷。惟自有会馆以来，泊逊咸丰庚申年曾修一次；迨光绪戊戌，又重修一次。乡前贤之如何尊重会馆、维护会馆，于此即可概见一般。岁序易易，光阴似矢；从戊戌再修而迄于今，已四十年于兹矣。雨乱风侵，墙垣与楼板俱朽，虫蚀日炙，榱题及楝宇将倾。不急起直追，继续修葺，再假以时，损坏尤钜。矧原有建筑，悉沿旧制，于空气、于卫生在在有不宜，重修必要。李君采成等有见及此，曾于民十八年间发起重建，正进行中，适为不景气影响中止。兹以馆属崩颓，更形岌岌，经再召集大会，决议补选职员，负责办理，将进行。间余序。余以事关本邑团体，于旅外同乡福利有密切关系；目素仰同乡诸君急公好义，向不后人，爰据事直书，仅叙数言，以为之序。t 中华民国廿五年六月二十日 驻槟榔屿领事邑人黄延凯谨撰”22 见本书第277页。23 谢仲凯，亦作谢仲楷，为谢梦池之次子，亦是谢益卿之孙子。24 见本书75页，附录10。25 见本书第72页，附录7。
16第六章t 重建展现新形象（1938–1941）重建工程终于于1938年8月11日26正式动工，并于1941年7月竣工。新建筑摒弃传统的庙宇式外观，转而采用融合中西风格并带有装饰艺术（Art Deco）元素的折衷式设计。建筑造型对称，细节简洁流畅，外观庄重大方，体现了1930至1940年代槟城现代建筑的流行风尚。摒弃传统庙宇式设计的原因尚不明确。一种可能是，传统的庙宇建筑需配备繁复的雕刻、屋脊装饰以及从中国进口的石料与木材，其造价远高于采用钢筋混凝土结构的现代建筑。另一种可能是，本会领导层有意选择当时流行的现代风格，以彰显会馆与时俱进的形象与社群发展的进步理念。事实上，在1930年代末期的中国，许多归国华侨在家乡兴建住宅时也广泛融入强烈的中西合璧元素，借此展现现代化与前瞻性的身份认同。此一潮流亦可能影响了本会新会所的建筑设计取向。据《南洋商报》1941年7月22日27报导，同年7月20日，会馆举行重建落成的开幕典礼，恭请中华民国驻槟城领事叶德顺先生主持剪彩仪式并致贺辞。第七章t 战时占领与战后恢复（1941–1945）不幸的是，在会馆落成典礼仅仅五个月后，日本军便于1941年12月11日开始在槟城乔治市进行轰炸，并于同年12月19日占领该岛28。另一方面，值得庆幸的是，本会会所安然度过了日本占领时期。一些年长会员后来回忆称，建筑曾遭轰炸。然而，根据日军投降后于1945年9月20日29在会所举行的首次董事会议记录，却呈现出一个较不夸张的说法。会议记录中仅提及26 见本书第75页，附录10，<槟榔屿嘉应会馆重建落成纪念碑> 1955年7月20日立。27 见本书第73及74页，附录8及附录9，星洲日报1941年7月22日及南洋商报1941年7月22日的报导。28 参见新加坡国家图书馆管理局网站文章《马来亚战役》（“Malayan Campaign”），访问日期：2025年9月18日，网址：https:\/\/www.nlb.gov.sg\/main\/article-detail?cmsuuid=f2e9428f-c2cc-4c21-8a33-6ba79d03d77e。29 见本书第343页。
17会所曾被自警团征用，期间室内堆满了大量沙袋，而后，会馆花了五百元清洗会所。记录中并未提及任何因轰炸造成的损毁，亦无关于家具或设施更换的事项。曾辉青先生30在他的文章《嘉宾俱乐部简史》中作出了进一步的说明。他提到，虽然会所建筑未遭炸弹直接击中，但附近爆炸产生的震动导致窗户和天花板严重受损，玻璃与木板无一完好。每逢下雨或刮风，屋内便尘土飞扬，碎屑纷落。为此，古国耀31先生个人垫付两千元，用于粉刷和修缮工程。经过一个多月的整修，会所恢复了明亮如新的面貌，令来访者倍感舒适。根据对现场的实地考察显示，真正遭受直接轰炸者，极可能是大伯公街24号右侧建筑，而非会所本身。综合这些记述可以看出，会所虽然未遭受直接轰炸，但在日军占领期间因邻近爆炸所产生的冲击、大量沙袋堆积以及被粗暴使用而遭受了间接性损毁。这种情况造成了内部损坏，但并未对主体结构产生严重影响。因此，后来的一些人在回忆中描述会所曾被“炸过”，然而当时的档案记录并不支持这种说法，这也解释了为何不同资料对损坏情况有不同的描述。第八章t 晒台改建与记录矛盾（1952–1953）关于修改大伯公街24号后晒台的建议，最早见于1952年3月16日的董事会议。司理当时指出，会馆举办宴会时，厨房空间不敷应用，因而建议通过调整后晒台来扩大厨房面积，并改善雨天漏水的问题。董事会对此“原则上赞同”，并委任由会长古国钧领导的小组委员会进一步研究。随后，在1952年11月22日的董事会议中，该事项再次被提起，可见仍在讨论之列。30 见《槟城嘉应会馆186周年纪念特刊》第16页。曾辉青先生于1992年至1995年间担任本会会长。31 古国耀先生于1948年至1949年出任本会会长。他亦是嘉宾俱乐部的创办人及首任会长。该俱乐部成立于1946年，并于1951年正式向政府注册。嘉宾俱乐部的成立，主要目的在于联谊乡情——本会在日本占领时期曾停顿活动逾三年。俱乐部最初设于 大伯公街22 号一楼，约一年后迁至 大伯公街24 号底层。
18然而，之后的记录却显现一定程度的不一致。1953年2月1日的会员大会上，司理的报告却改为有关“侧面晒台”的建造，并未说明此“侧台”位于何处，也未提及早前关于24号后晒台的讨论。报告中又提到，拟在会馆内部楼梯扶栏旁开一道门，以通往该晒台，但是否涉及连接22号产业与24号产业两座毗邻建筑并不明确。报告亦指出，晒台图则已呈交地方当局批准，并将在获准后择吉日动工。综合现存会议记录，显见董事会真正作出的决议仅限于“原则上”同意修改24号产业后晒台；而后提及的侧面晒台工程，且已进入图则呈报、工程筹备等实质性阶段，但并无对应的董事会决议记录授权此项侧面晒台的建造。这显示后续晒台工程或许在行政上被归入会所的整体修缮计划中处理，而未留下明确的会议决议衔接此前的讨论。此项工程的费用，经大众会议通过，公款支用不得超过两千元。1953年7月4日召开的董事会议议决，应落实先前的决定，为这次修建晒台的捐款者立铜牌并刻上芳名，以资永久纪念。然而，今日在会所内却未能寻获此铜牌。无论如何，当年的晒台具体位于何处，如今已无法确定。22号产业与24号产业两处建筑均在1970年代经过大规模翻修，整个地段随后被全面重建，原有布局已无迹可寻，尤其是24号产业后部在当时重建为三层结构，尽管外观上仍保持原有两层楼的比例与高度。第九章t 扩建与翻修（1968–1976）战后二十余年，会所建筑虽仍在使用，但已需进行大规模修缮。本会在1968年8月11日召开特别会员大会，商讨会所的长期扩建计划，并成立由董事与资深会员组成的扩建委员会，负责监督此项工程。与此同时，董事会在1968年10月13日举行的会议上通过另一项决议，决定在
19等待扩建计划实施的同时，立即对会所进行修缮和改善，包括安装天花板及采用石棉覆盖天窗。进入1970年代初期，本会开始积极展开募捐活动，以资助会所的扩建工程。募捐对象不仅限于槟城本地同乡，更延伸至马来西亚各地城镇包括文冬，亚罗士打等地区。扩建委员会推出了一套表彰制度以鼓励捐款：捐款者姓名刻于大理石碑上，并将在会所内显著位置陈列；对主要捐助者，则授予名誉会员，甚至名誉会长荣衔。会议记录对扩建工程的实际规模记载甚少，但明确记录了1975年正式将建造合同授予承包商，合同总额为RM39,900.00，并于1976年完成扩建工程。然而，曾辉青先生在其文章<嘉宾俱乐部简史>32中填补了这一空白。据他所述，24号产业的后段被重建为一座三层楼的楼宇，会所其余部分也进行了修缮与翻新。扩建工程竣工后的次年，大伯公街22号产业与24号产业的底层全部出租，为本会提供了稳定可靠的收入来源。第十章t 名列世界文化遗产名录（2008–至今）2008年7月7日，马六甲与槟城乔治市一同被联合国教科文组织列入世界文化遗产名录。本会位于22号产业与24号产业的会所，尽管在1970年代曾进行过局部重建与翻修，仍被评定为第一类文物建筑，彰显其卓越的建筑、文化与历史价值，代表了乔治市最高级别的遗产价值。本会会所被列为第一类建筑，虽属殊荣，同时也带来了沉重的责任。本会须独自承担全部的维护责任、合规要求及高昂费用。任何拆除或重新开发均被禁止；凡涉及外墙、屋顶、窗户或油漆等外部改动，均须事先获得槟岛市政厅及乔治市世界遗产机构的批准。修缮工程必须使用与原建筑一致的材料，并由熟练工32 见《槟城嘉应会馆186周年纪念特刊》第16页。曾辉青是会馆1992年至1995年的会长。
20匠施工；重大工程须提交遗产影响评估报告；且建筑物的用途严格限定于文化、住宅或低影响的商业用途33。由于资源有限、资金紧张，再加上修缮工作须满足高昂的合规要求，本会仅能对会所进行基本的维护与保养。第十一章t t 先人牌位与修复工程（2019）会馆在22号产业的一楼神龛内，现供奉着约319个历届会员及其家属的先人牌位。依照传统华人宗祠的习俗，开基祖的牌位通常安置在神龛最显著、最尊崇的中央位置。然而，本会并非单一姓氏的宗族祠堂，而是由来自广东嘉应州的不同姓氏之同乡所组成的社团，因此此类摆设方式并不适用。基于此，会馆于神龛中央供奉的是两块总神位，即“皇清显祖考妣五属先人总神位”及“嘉应五属列曾祖考妣之神位”。这两块总神位的设立，与本会于1838年在白云山义山所建的“嘉应州总坟”具有同样的宗旨：为嘉应州同乡先贤提供一个安奉尊位之所。先贤们深恐当年那些远渡重洋、在异乡并肩打拼、虽姓氏各异却情同手足的同乡中，有些人或在槟城去世，或未能归葬原乡，因而没有子孙祭祀。逐一记住他们的墓址并逐一前往祭拜，既不实际亦难以持续。为了使这些逝去的先贤得以继续受到祭祀与缅怀，不致湮没无闻，先辈遂设立了这些总神位及总坟。此举正体现了客家“亡者有所归、灵魂有所安”的人道精神，使逝者既有魂归之所，亦有敬祀之处。这些总神位与总坟的涵盖范围从来不局限于最早抵达的同乡。自设立之初，它们所祭祀的对象不仅包括在槟城无子孙承祀而逝去的先辈，也包括那些虽然曾33 参见《乔治市世界遗产特别区域规划》第二册〈发展管制〉之一般规定。
21有家人或同侪，但最终已无人为其延续祭祀的同乡先贤。随着时间的推移，其功能更扩大至所有嘉应州同乡，无论其是否尚有子女或同侪为之上供。如此一来，无论是早期的先贤，抑或是后来者，皆得以延续祭祀与追思之尊严。至于会馆何时开始奉祀先人牌位，因史料散佚，已无法确考。然而，早在十八世纪末，嘉应州人士已在槟城留下足迹，其中最早可考的嘉应籍墓碑其年代可追溯自1799年34。再加上会馆于十九世纪初已拥有会所建筑，因此可以合理推断，当时会馆极有可能已经开始安奉先人牌位，其时间或与1838年设立嘉应州总坟相近，甚至更早。2019年，本会董事曾仲平35先生慷慨捐献RM50,000.00，以支持会馆对神龛内历史价值深厚的先人牌位展开必要的文物保护与修缮工程。相关工程包括：修复牌位底座、购置两只大型铜制香炉并在其表面刻字以取代原有的白铁香炉、以及核对并记录所有牌位的原有摆放位置及牌位所载姓名，成立正式档案。上述文物保护与修缮工程的总费用为RM29,044.00，这笔投入对于本会文化与先人遗产的长久保存与传承，具有深远的意义。第十二章t t 厕所重建工程（2021）在新冠疫情期间，会馆原本尚有多项维修与改善工程亟待处理。然而，鉴于当时的特殊环境与财务限制，会馆决定优先处理其中最为迫切的一项工程——位于24号产业二楼的厕所重建。2021年，会馆依照所有相关法规完成申报手续，取得所需批准后随即展开重建工程，整个项目的开支共计RM81,770.00。本项工程得以顺利完成，乃有赖多方的支持与慷慨相助。州政府拨出34 见本书第134页，附录15。35 曾仲平是曾辉青之次子。
22RM30,000.00作为工程资助，而曾仲平先生再度慷慨捐献RM70,000.00以协助支付项目费用。他的善举与无私奉献，大大减轻了会馆的财政负担，并激励理事及会员们齐心协力，共同守护这座历史建筑及其内部设施。会馆谨此对曾先生的无私奉献致以衷心的感谢与崇高的敬意。第十三章t t 政府资助修复计划（2024–2025年）2024年1月，乔治市世界遗产机构在马来西亚联邦政府资助下，推出“第一及第二类文化遗产建筑修缮资助计划”，旨在支持乔治市联合国教科文组织世界文化遗产地的保护与管理工作。本会成功申请并获得对22号产业及24号产业的维修资助，金额分别为RM148,750.00和RM148,500.00。根据该计划，乔治市世界遗产机构（George Town World Heritage Incorporated）将款项直接支付予获委任的承包商。在政府所推行的《第一及第二类遗产建筑修复资助计划》下，所资助的修复工程包括：（甲） 建筑立面与上海灰饰修复（一）清洗并修复破损的上海灰，使其纹理与原貌一致（二）清洗并重新油漆建筑外侧墙面及后（三）清洁及修补楼板底部、阳台底部及招牌饰面的灰泥层（乙） 建筑围护结构与主体结构（一）钢筋混凝土檐口上下表面修复（包括裂缝修补、防水处理及重新批荡）（二）钢筋混凝土屋面板的防水与裂缝修复（三）22号产业阳台钢筋混凝土板修补工程
23（四）屋脊分户墙防水处理（五）清除墙体及建筑周边的野生植物和野生植物（丙） 排水系统工程（一）修复松动的排水沟边砖块并以原有砖料重新排列（二）修复前方排水沟损坏的砖体（三）清理外部排水沟及走廊地面（丁） 门窗、铁闸及金属构件（文物修复）（一）修复不同尺寸（22号产业及24号产业）的主要实木大门（二）修复铁拉闸门及折叠式铁闸门（三）修补窗框及雕花玻璃窗扇（四）重新油漆金属窗花（五）更换缺失的金属窗花（六）修复圆形窗、木窗及雕刻玻璃窗扇（戊） 内部与外部油漆工程（一）重新油漆内部墙面、天花板、走廊墙面及底板（底层与一楼）（二）重新油漆面向Lebuh Gereja的侧墙（三）修补及重绘正门的中文匾额与楹联（己） 机电工程（仅限基本修复）（一）整理现有电线及拆除损坏电线（二）迁移国能（TNB）电表（24号产业）（三）搬迁冷气压缩机（范围有限）（四）拆除旧的三相配电箱（22号产业）（五）在22号产业安装基本照明点与电源插座
24第十四章t t 会馆自资进行的额外改善工程（2024–2025）此外，会馆总共支出了RM43,792.71以完成以下改善工程，其中RM39,186.00来自董事曾仲平先生的捐款余额：（甲） 建筑外观与结构工程（一）更换22号产业天井处的排水沟（二）更换破损屋瓦并进行防水工程（三）检查及处理屋顶木结构（四）在22号产业与24号产业之间安装不锈钢屋脊盖及闪边（乙) 门窗工程（一）修复\/更换木制门扇（二）修复\/更换木制窗户及雕花玻璃窗片（三）修复\/更换缺失的轻钢窗口铁花（四）在厨房、储藏室及数个房间安装8片式及11片式玻璃百叶（五）清除现有玻璃片上的油漆并修复木质窗板（六）更换地面层主入口的青铜门环（丙） 室内工程（一）重新粉刷24号产业一楼的内部墙面（二）重新整理并提升电线布线系统（三）地面清洁与修复（四）修复\/更换洗手盆及通风管道（五）重新油漆雕花木构件（六）在24号产业一楼安装厨房设备（丁） 龙神牌位保护工程（一） 保护与修复神龛底部的龙神牌位（戊） 安全与合规工程（一）更换及增设干粉灭火器
25（二）取得消拯局（BOMBA）认证（三）安装闭路电视（CCTV）（四）在办公室、主入口、大堂及厨房安装八个出口指示牌（五）在办公室及其他照明点安装十五个紧急灯（六）额外增设八个紧急灯。（己） 电力系统提升（一）安装新的三相主配电盘（MSB），整合现有分电箱（DB），并铺设电缆至电表房（二）从主配电箱铺设10mm×4mm2 E型电缆至副配电箱（三）安装两座配备MCCB、ELCB和MCB的14路MSI分电箱（四）全面提升会所电力系统。（庚） 照明工程（一）更换六个LED筒灯，安装10W日光色LED灯泡（二）新装六个LED筒灯，配备10W日光色LED灯泡（三）增设六个新的筒灯照明点（四）更换神龛前的灯笼（五）在地面层楼梯入口处安装一盏灯笼（六）在地面层大门安装两盏灯笼上述情况体现了本会对22号产业与24号产业的保存、维护与提升，始终保持着坚定不移的承诺。尽管政府资助的《第一类及二类历史建筑维修资助计划》在关键的结构与保育工程上提供了重要协助，但是本会仍然自行承担了额外开支，用以完成各项配套改善工程。第十五章t t 动土与谢土仪式（2025）在修缮工程开工前，会馆于2025年2月19日举行了动土仪式，由资深道长主
26持，会长拿督刘竹山及董事们出席典礼，以示修缮工程正式启动。修缮工程竣工后，于2025年7月11日举行了谢土仪式，会长及董事们再次出席，仪式庄重圆满。第十六章t t 延续的保护承诺然而，尽管已做了许多努力，会所仍有不少地方需要修缮和保护，才能真正保全它的历史价值。展望未来，本会经费有限，主要依靠产业微薄的租金来支付日后的维修与保养费用。因此，要长期保持会所体面庄重的状态，仍将是一项持续不断的挑战。22号产业与24号产业的历史，不只是建筑的变迁，更是一部槟城客家社群坚韧不拔、适应时代、守护传统的集体记忆。从1801年最初获得政府批地，历经多次修缮和重建、战火考验、战后复兴、扩建发展，到如今成为世界文化遗产的一部分，这座会所始终默默见证着一代又一代的嘉应人，坚辛在我国落地生根的故事。每一任领导人和会员们，无论是修补屋顶、四处募款，还是遵守严格的文化遗产规定，都用实际行动承担起责任。他们所守护的，不只是砖瓦木石，更是族群认同的精神象征。本会坚信，文化遗产不应只是过去的遗迹，而应是“活的遗产”。我们将继续努力维护并活化会所空间，让它能回应新时代在文化、教育与社区联系上的需求。石头会风化，精神永不灭。嘉应精神，代代相传。
27A Legacy of Stone and Spirit The History of the Association’s Premises at King Street, PenangBernard Kok1. Origins and Early Grant (1801–1842)While the land then known as Lot No. 70, T.S. XX, East District (now known as Lot No. 561, Seksyen 20, Bandar Georgetown, Daerah Timur Laut, Pulau Pinang) measuring approximately 3,027 square feet in area (hereinafter referred to as “Lot N0. 561”), upon which the Association’s premises at No. 22, King Street, 10300 Penang now stands (hereinafter referred to as “No. 22 Property”), was granted free of charge to the Association on the 2nd day of November 1801 by SIR GEORGE LEITH, Bart., Lieutenant Governor of Prince of Wales Island, under the authority of the Governor-General in Council of Fort William in Bengal. Our immediate neighbour to the right, CHINA ABOON, must likewise have been an equally distinguished figure, having been granted, on the very same day and also free of charge, Lot No. 71, T.S. XX, East District (now Lot No. 562, Seksyen 20, Bandar George Town, Daerah Timur Laut, Pulau Pinang) measuring approximately 1,905 square feet in area, presently bearing the address No. 24, King Street, Penang (hereinafter referred to as “No. 24 Property”1).2. Family Succession and Transfers (1842–1895)CHINA ABOON was a typical example of the Chinese migration patterns of his time, arriving at Prince of Wales Island at a young age to seek a livelihood and 1 See Figure 1, page 51.
28returning to China in his later years, particularly after having accumulated modest wealth.On the 7th day of August 1841, his widow, NONIA BOO, most likely a native of Prince of Wales Island and who had remained there, affirmed in her application for the Letter of Administration that CHINA ABOON had departed the island as an inhabitant and had died in China about twenty-five years earlier - around 18262. On the same day, she obtained from the Court of Judicature of Prince of Wales Island, Singapore and Malacca the Letter of Administration for his estate3.By a Deed Poll dated the 7th day of September 1842, NONIA BOO assigned No. 24 Property together with the premises erected thereon, then a plank house (hereinafter referred to as “the plank house”) to her son, LOH YU FOONG, her daughter, TAN SEOO NEO and her sons-in-law, FONG ENG QUEE and CHIN CHECK CHEONG, as tenants in common, meaning they held equal and undivided shares in No. 24 Property4.The relationship of the parties is very confusing:-(a) NONIA BOO’s son and daughter have different surnames, suggesting she may have remarried after CHINA ABOON left Prince of Wales Island; and (b) both FONG ENG QUEE and CHIN CHECK CHEONG are described as NONIA BOO’s sons-in-law, despite her having only one daughter; and(c) The daughter of CHIN CHECK CHEONG was named TAN QUEE NEOH. At first glance, it seems that the father and daughter had different surnames—the father’s surname being “Chin” while the daughter’s surname was “Tan”. However, in reality, “Chin” and “Tan” both represent the same Chinese character “陈”. “Chin” is typically the romanization used in Cantonese or Hakka dialects, whereas “Tan” is the romanization in Sourthern Hokkien dialect. This difference in dialectal romanization led to the appar2 See Figure 2, page 53.3 See Figure 3, page 55.4 See Figure 4, page 58.
29ent inconsistency in surnames, further adding to the confusion about their family relationship.There is no record of TAN SEOO NEO’s age at death or year of birth, making it impossible to establish whether she was the biological daughter of CHINA ABOON. While it is possible she was his offspring if born before his departure, there is no record of the date on which he left Prince of Wales Island. It is equally possible that she was the child of a later marriage or relationship of NONIA BOO or that the term ‘daughter’ in this context referred to a social or symbolic relationship (such as an adopted child, stepdaughter, or god-daughter) rather than a biological one. To date, no conclusive evidence has been found that CHINA ABOON left any offspring in Penang. LOH YU FOONG, NONIA BOO’s son, died around 1863 or 1864 at about 16 years of age, placing his birth in 1847 or 1848, making it chronologically impossible for him to have been the biological son of CHINA ABOON, who died two decades earlier.TAN SEOO NEOH, wife of FONG ENG QUEE, mother of FONG LUAN POW, died around 5 years before the 12th day of July 1866 (i.e., around 1861). Upon her death, her ¼ undivided share of No. 24 Property devolved to her husband, FONG ENG QUEE. By a Deed Poll dated the 12th day of July 1866, FONG ENG QUEE conveyed both his own ¼ undivided share and ¼ undivided share inherited from his late wife, thereby transferring a total of ½ undivided share of No. 24 Property to FONG LUAN POW5. CHIN CHECK CHEONG died around 1865. His only daughter and surviving child, TAN QUEE NEOH, was granted Letters of Administration for his estate in 1895.TAN QUEE NEOH eventually acquired full ownership of No. 24 Property through the following means:-5 See Figure 5, page 62.
30(a) by a Deed Poll dated the 11th day of April 1888, FONG LUAN POW sold his ½ undivided share of No. 24 Property to TAN QUEE NEOH;(b) by inheritance of her father, CHIN CHECK CHEONG’s ¼ undivided share of No. 24 Property; and(c) by adverse possession of LOH YU FOONG’s ¼ undivided share of No. 24 Property, in accordance with the law applicable at the material time6.We found, from the Order dated the 11th day of June 1923 granted by MR. JUSTICE SPROULS in the Supreme Court of Straits Settlement at the Settlement of Penang under Suit 1923 of 3267, that the Association’s then-trustees, namely, YEOH TEK SIN, YEONG AH BOO, LEE TEAN HEE, LEONG KIM FEE, HEOH KEAN UNG, LEE AH PIN, PUNG SAM HUP, CHEAH SEONG YOKE, KHOO YOON KIN, CHEAH TAR SIN, CHEONG AH CHEAP, LEE LEONG NGHEE, GNEOW SEOW FAT, CHOONG YOONG HEAN, LIM HIM TONG, FOO KOEY YEN, UNG BOON GEOW, NEOH KEE NEONG and LEE AH POW, had acquired No. 24 Property from TAN QUEE NEOH pursuant to an Indenture dated the 23rd day of March 1895 (Registered No. 155 Vol. XIX of 1895). Regrettably, the said Indenture cannot be located in the Association’s records, despite the availability of other relevant documents, including the deed of alienation dated the 2nd day of November 1801, by which No. 24 Property was originally granted to CHINA ABOON. Consequently, we are unable to ascertain the price paid by our predecessors for the acquisition of No. 24 Property or whether the Indenture contains any description of the nature and character of the premises then standing on the property in 1895. Without this, it is uncertain whether any alterations were made to the plank house said to have existed in 1842.Likewise, the original nature and character of the Association’s building at No. 22 Property remains uncertain. According to the description from the Commem6 See Figure 6, page 66.7 See page xxix, “Penang Kar Yin Fee Kon Records of Meetings Volume 1 (1921-1929)”.
31orative Plaque8 for the Reconstruction and Completion of the PENANG KAR YIN FEE KON dated the 20th day of July 1955, the original building was constructed in the style of a temple. The plague is now hung on the wall of the first floor of the Association’s premises. It comprised two storeys: the first floor housed ancestral tablets commemorating deceased compatriots, while the ground floor enshrined the deity Guan Sheng Di Jun. However, the date of construction of this temple-style building is not known.3. First Renovations and Social Role (1860–1895)MR. LIÁNG JÌQIÓNG, who served as President of the Association after the Second World War, wrote in article dated the 23rd day of July 19509. According to the Association’s records, the building at No. 22 Property was renovated in 1860. Unfortunately, those records can no longer be found. He further noted that at that time, Lot No. 561 had not yet been surveyed by the Government.Similarly, the 1955 Plaque records that the Association’s building10 was first renovated in 1860 under the leadership of HUÁNG JIÀNMÍNG, GǓ YǑNGSHÙN11and others. However, it provides no description of the renovations undertaken. Reference is made to the deed of appointment of the managing committee dated the 28th day of February 1860, as found at page 2 of the Deed of Alienation in respect of Lot No. 56112, indicates that Lot No. 561 was entrusted to the then managing committee of the Association, namely, CU AH SHIM, WONG AH SHIM, CHI8 The earliest written records preserved by the Association are the minutes of meeting dated 27 August1921. The source of information relied upon by the Plaque remains uncertain. Some details - such asthe physical appearance of the Association’s building - may have been transmitted orally through members who had seen it in earlier times.9 See page xix, “Penang Kar Yin Fee Kon Records of Meetings Volume 1 (1921-1929)”, A HistoricalOverview of the Evolution of the Penang Kar Yin Association.10 It is to be noted Lot No. 562 was bought in 1895. Therefore, the premises referred to must be the premises at No. 22, King Street.11 As stated earlier, the source of information relied upon by the Plaque remains uncertain.12 See page xxiii, “Penang Kar Yin Fee Kon Records of Meetings Volume 1 (1921-1929)”.
32AH AH CHIM, CIU AH RGI, LEONG AH CHAK, YAH AH NG, LI AH CHEN and LU AH NGI. Notably, HUÁNG JIÀNMÍNG and GǓ YǑNGSHÙN were not members of this managing committee.Both the 1955 Plaque and MR. LIÁNG’S Article record that the building was again renovated in 189213. MR. LIÁNG further noted that the renovation was carried out under the leadership of MR. XIÈ YÌQĪNG14 and MR. GǓ YǑNQĪNG. As with the earlier renovation, no details are provided as to the nature or extent of the works undertaken. In the same Article, MR. LIÁNG recorded that a sanatorium was established at the same time for the benefit of fellow clansmen who were ill. During that period, many Chinese immigrants had come to the Straits Settlements to work while they were still young. Some had neither established families in the Straits Settlements nor returned to China. They were thus left without sufficient means to care for themselves in their later years. Moved by care and concern for its fellow townsmen, the Association endeavoured to provide assistance to those in need, and accordingly established this sanatorium for the welfare of the aged and infirm.In 1895, after acquiring No. 24 Property, the Association renovated and converted the building thereon into a sanatorium. According to MR. LIÁNG, the total renovation costs was more than 2,000 dollars15. It is believed that the sanatorium was at that time relocated from No. 22 Property to No. 24 Property.13 As stated earlier, the source of information relied upon by the Plaque remains uncertain.14 Xiè Yìqīng (谢益卿, 1820–1914), also known as Shuāngyù (双玉), was a native of Tóngpán Village,Sōngkǒu Town, Méixiàn County, Guǎngdōng Province. In his twenties, he ventured overseas to Southeast Asia, first establishing himself in Pontianak, Dutch Borneo (now Indonesia). He later expanded intomining, commerce and industry across British Malaya (present-day Malaysia and Singapore). Throughthese enterprises he built an extensive business network and emerged as a leading Hakka overseasChinese figure in Southeast Asia during the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries.15 It is uncertain whether the reference to ‘dollars’ in 1895 denoted Spanish dollars or Mexican dollars, asthe Straits dollar was only formally issued in 1898.
334. Education and Culture (1921–1927)Moving into the 20th century, the earliest recorded intention to renovate the Association’s building appears in the minutes of the General Meeting held on the 27th day of August 1921. It is, however, unclear whether the reference was to No. 22 Property alone or jointly with No. 24 Property. According to the minutes, the building was described as being “filthy and increasingly dilapidated”16.These circumstances may have contributed to the closure of the sanatorium in 1924 after nearly thirty-three years of operation. According to MR. LIÁNG, the facilities and structure of the sanatorium were found to be unhygienic and its management faced many difficulties. Anticipating the closure, the Association resolved in 1923 to make better use of the building by establishing a reading room where fellow townsmen could spend their leisure reading newspapers, thereby fostering fellowship and broadening their knowledge. The reading room was formally instituted in 1924.At the same time, the Association also set up an evening school for young people who had missed out formal education, enabling them to pursue tuition and further learning. However, due to lack of teachers, the evening school was soon discontinued.Through these initiatives, the Association ensured that the building continued to serve the community, reflecting the very nature of the Hakka people—revering culture and valuing education.5. Towards Reconstruction (1927–1936)Four years after the matter was first raised in 1921, the renovation of the Association’s building was again brought up at the General Meeting of the 15th day 16 See page 8, “Penang Kar Yin Fee Kon Records of Meetings Volume 1 (1921-1929)”.
34of October 192517. It was proposed that a draftsman be engaged to prepare plans and estimate the costs of renovation. It was further suggested that funds be raised through donations from fellow townsmen residing outside Penang. However, no substantive action was taken until the General Meeting held on the 13th day of January 192718, when approval for the repairs was finally secured. The expenses were to be met through contributions from capitalists, business houses and fellow clansmen from other localities. The design prepared by MR. XǓXÌNGCHŪ19 was also duly approved.The idea of reconstructing the Association’s building may have been deliberated earlier, but the first recorded reference appears in the minutes of the General Meeting held on the 16th day of April 192720. At that time, it had yet to be decided whether the works would constitute a renovation or a complete reconstruction, as the course of action depended on the amount of donations raised. It may be reasonably assumed that complete reconstruction, being the more costly option, would only have undertaken if the sufficient donations were secured. At the General Meeting of the 6th day of June 192721, it was observed that the renovation of the Association’s building was an urgent priority, with immediate focus placed on establishing a formal management structure and fundraising mechanism.In the months that followed, numerous meetings and discussions were convened to deliberate on the proposed reconstruction. The project, however, was eventually suspended with the onset of the global economic depression.It was reported at the General Meeting held on the 26th day of February 19342217 See page 129, “Penang Kar Yin Fee Kon Records of Meetings Volume 1 (1921-1929)”.18 See page 184, “Penang Kar Yin Fee Kon Records of Meetings Volume 1 (1921-1929)”.19 MR. XǓ XÌNGCHŪ is a member of the Penang Kar Yin Fee Kon.20 See page 194, “Penang Kar Yin Fee Kon Records of Meetings Volume 1 (1921-1929)”.21 See page 199, “Penang Kar Yin Fee Kon Records of Meetings Volume 1 (1921-1929)”.22 See page 277.
35that MR. XIÈ ZHÒNGKǍI23 and MR. LIÁNG YÌNGQUÁN had pledged several thousand dollars. In addition, overseas Chinese communities had pledged or contributed further sums, bringing the total pledges to over 10,000 dollars. However, MR. XIÈ resigned in the preceding year from his position as Chairman of the Association. Although these pledges were most encouraging, the project did not immediately proceed. According to “the Commemorative Plaque for the Reconstruction and Completion of the PENANG KAR YIN FEE KON”24, the project was only revived in 1936. MR. LǏ CǍICHÉNG and his team travelled tirelessly across British Malaya and Thailand to raise contributions from the countrymen for the reconstruction of the Association’s building. The Association’s Fundraising Proclamation was reported on the 3rd day of September 1936 in the Chinese newspapers Sin Chew Jit Poh in 193625. The Proclamation stated as follows:-“The Jiā Yīng community has an association in Penang. The date of its establishment and the identity of its founders have been obscured by time and remain unverifiable.Since its founding, the Association has undergone repairs on two occasions: first in 1860, the Gēngshēn year of the Xiánfēng reign, and again in 1898, the Wùxū year of the Guāngxù reign. From these earlier efforts, the manner in which the elders of our fellow townsmen respected and maintained the Association may be readily discerned.Time, however, passes swiftly. From the renovation carried out in 1898 to the present day, more than forty years have elapsed. Damaged by rain and wind, the walls and floorboards have all rotted; eaten away by insects and weathered by the sun, the rafters and ridge structures are now close to collapse.23 XIÈ ZHÒNGKǍI is the second son of XIÈ MÉNGCHÍ, grandson of XIÈ YÌQĪNG24 See Figure 10, page 75.25 See Figure 7, page 72.
36If repairs are not undertaken without delay and carried on, the passage of time will only worsen the damage. Moreover, the original building was constructed entirely according to old designs and is in many respects unsuitable in terms of ventilation and sanitation. Reconstruction is therefore necessary.Seeing this situation, MR LǏ CǍICHÉNG and others initiated a rebuilding project in the eighteenth year of the Republic (1929). While the project was in progress, it was halted due to the economic downturn. As the Association’s buildings have since continued to deteriorate and the risk has become more severe, a general meeting was convened again, at which it was resolved to appoint committee members to take charge of the matter and to proceed with the rebuilding project.As this undertaking is closely connected with the welfare of our fellow townsmen, and as I have long held in esteem their public spirit and sense of righteousness, I have therefore recorded the facts plainly and set down a few words as a preface.The 20th day of June, the 25th Year of the Republic of ChinaHUÁNG YÁNKǍI Consul in Penang”6. Reconstruction and New Identity (1938–1941)Finally, construction commenced on 11 August 193826 and was completed in July 1941. The new building had abandoned the traditional temple-style facade. Instead, it adopted an Eastern and Western eclectic style with Art Deco influences. Symmetrical in form, streamlined in detail and dignified in appearance, it reflected the modern architectural fashion of Penang in the 1930s–40s.The reasons for departing from the traditional temple-style design remain uncertain. One possibility is that a temple-style structure, with elaborate carvings, roof ridges and imported stone and timber, would have been far more costly than a 26 See Figure 10, page 75, “the Commemorative Plaque for the Reconstruction and Completion of thePENANG KAR YIN FEE KON” dated the 20th day of July 1955.
37modern reinforced-concrete building. Another possibility is that the Association’s leaders intentionally chose a contemporary style to express both modern identity and community progress. Indeed, in the late 1930s, even in China, returning overseas Chinese were building houses that incorporated strong Western eclectic features as a way of projecting a modern and progressive identity.It was reported in Nanyang Siang Pau on the 22nd day of July 194127 that on the 20th day of July 1941, a grand opening ceremony was presided over by President MR. LǏ CǍICHÉNG, with Consul-General of the Republic of China in Penang, MR. YÈ DÉSHÙN, delivering a congratulatory address. 7. Wartime Occupation and Post-War Recovery (1941–1945)It is unfortunate that only five months after the opening ceremony, the Japanese forces began bombing George Town, Penang on the 11th day of December 1941 and the island was captured on the 19th day of December 194128. On the other hand, it was fortunate that the Association’s building survived the Japanese occupation. Some elderly members later recalled that the building had been bombed. Yet, records from the first committee meeting on the 20th day of September 194529, held at the Association’s building after the Japanese surrender, noted that the building had been requisitioned by the Self-Defence Corps, during which countless sandbags were piled inside and the only expenditure approved was five hundred dollars for cleaning. There is no mention of bombing damage or the replacement of furnishings.Further clarification comes from MR. ZĒNG HUĪQĪNG, in his article “The 27 See Figure 8 and Figure 9, page 73 and 74, Sin Chew Daily, 22 July 1941 and Nanyang Siang Pau,22 July 1941.28 See “Malayan Campaign”, National Library Board Singapore, accessed 18 September 2025, https:\/\/www.nlb.gov.sg\/main\/article-detail?cmsuuid=f2e9428f-c2cc-4c21-8a33-6ba79d03d77e29 See page 343.
38History of The Association30”. He said that although the building was not directly hit, vibrations from nearby bombings shattered windows and ceilings, leaving not a single pane or panel intact. Dust and debris would rain down whenever it rained or was windy. MR. GǓ GUÓYÀO31 therefore personally advanced two thousand dollars to cover the costs of repainting and renovation. After a month, the hall was restored to a bright and new condition, making visitors feel much more comfortable.Based on the physical observations of the site, it seems more likely that the building to the right of No. 24 Property, rather than the Association’s building itself, had suffered the direct bombing damage. Taking into all these accounts, it is clear that although the Association’s building was not directly bombed, it did suffer secondary damage from nearby blasts, heavy sandbagging and rough use during the Japanese Occupation. Such conditions caused internal damage and disruption without seriously affecting the main structure. As a result, some later recollections described the building as having been bombed, even though contemporary records do not support this interpretation. This discrepancy explains why different sources describe the damage in differing terms.8.t Terrace Alterations and Conflicting Records (1952–1953)The proposal to modify the rear terrace of No. 24 Property was first raised at the Committee Meeting of the 16th day of March 1952, when the Honorary Secre30 See page 16, “Commemorative Issue for the 186th Anniversary of the Penang Kar Yin Fee Kon”. MR.ZĒNG HUĪQĪNG was the President of the Association from 1992-1995.31 MR. GǓ GUÓYÀO served as President of the Association from 1948 to 1949. He was also the founderand first President of the Kar Bīn Club, which was established in 1946 and formally registered with thegovernment in 1951. The Club was created with the primary objective of revitalizing the Association,which had remained inactive for more than three years during the Japanese occupation. Initially, theClub operated from the first floor of No. 22, King Street, but it was relocated to the ground floor of No.24, King Street about one year later.
39tary reported that the kitchen was frequently overcrowded during banquets and recommended expanding it by altering the rear terrace. The Committee agreed to the proposal in principle and appointed a sub-committee, led by the President, GǔGuójūn, to study the matter. The issue resurfaced at the Committee Meeting on the 22nd day of November 1952, indicating that it had remained under consideration.However, inconsistency arises in the later records. At the General Meeting of Members held on the 1st day of February 1953, the Honorary Secretary referring to the earlier discussions concerning the rear terrace of No. 24 Property. Instead, he reported instead on the construction of a side terrace, without stating where this side terrace was located. The report also mentioned a proposed doorway beside the internal staircase to provide access to the terrace, although it is unclear whether this implied any connection between the adjoining building at Nos. 22 and 24 Properties. It was further noted that architectural drawings had been submitted to the local authority for approval and that construction could begin on an auspicious day once approval was obtained.The minutes show only an “in principle” approval for modifying the rear terrace of No. 24 Property, while subsequent references describe active progress on a different project, the construction of a side terrace, without any recorded Committee resolution authorising it. This suggests that the later terrace works were treated administratively as part of the Association’s general building improvements, even though no formal resolution linking them to the earlier deliberations.It was resolved at the Committee Meeting held on the 4th day of July 1953 that the Association should implement the earlier decision to commemorate the donations made for the construction of the terrace by engraving the donors’ names on a bronze plaque as a permanent record. However, no such bronze plaque is found in the Association today.In any event, it is no longer possible to determine the precise location of the
40terrace as both Nos. 22 and 24 Properties underwent extensive refurbishment in the 1970s, and the entire plots have since been fully built over, leaving no trace of their earlier layout. In particular, the rear portion of No. 24 Property was reconstructed as a three-storey structure, albeit one that preserved the outward appearance of its original two-storey height.9. Expansion and Renovations (1968–1976)More than 20 years after the war, the building was still in use but needed significant refurbishment. On the 11th day of August 1968, a special general meeting had already been called to discuss on a long-term expansion of the Association’s building. A Building Committee was formed, consisting of directors and prominent members, to oversee the project.In the meantime, a separate resolution was passed in the committee meeting held on the 13th day of October 1968 to carry out immediate repairs and improvements in the building, including installation of ceiling boards and covering the skylight with asbestos, while waiting for the expansion plan in the near future.Through the early 1970s, the Association started vigorous fundraising campaigns to finance the expansion of its building. Appeals were not confined to fellow townsmen in Penang alone but extended to other towns, including Bentong, Alor Setar and other places throughout Malaysia. The Expansion Committee encouraged contributions by introducing a system of recognition: the names of donors were engraved on marble plaques prominently displayed within the building, while major benefactors were accorded honorary membership or even honorary president status. The minutes provide little detail about the actual scope of the expansion works but do record that in 1975 the construction contract was formally awarded to a contractor at a contract sum of RM39,900.00 and the expansion was completed by 1976.
41According to MR. ZĒNG HUĪQĪNG’s article “Kar Bin Club Overview”32, the rear portion of the building at No. 24 Property was rebuilt into a three-story structure, while other sections were renovated and refurbished. In the year following the completion of the expansion, the ground floors of both Nos. 22 and 24 Properties were fully let out, providing the Association with a stable and reliable source of income.10. World Heritage Recognition (2008–Present)On the 7th day of July 2008, Malacca together with George Town, Penang, was inscribed as a UNESCO World Heritage Site. The Association’s building at Nos. 22 and 24 Properties, notwithstanding the partial rebuilding and refurbishment in 1970s, are classified as Category I buildings, signifying their exceptional architectural, cultural and historical significance, and representing the highest level of heritage value in George Town. The classification of the Association’s building as Category I buildings, though prestigious, places onerous obligations on the Association. It must bear the full burden of upkeep, compliance and high costs. Demolition or redevelopment is prohibited, and any external alteration, whether to the facade, roof, windows or paint, requires prior approval from the City Council of Penang and the George Town World Heritage Incorporated. Repairs must employ authentic materials and skilled craftsmen, major works demand Heritage Impact Assessments and permitted uses are strictly confined to cultural, residential or low-impact commercial purposes33.Due to limited resources and financial constraints, as well as the costly compliance requirements for repairs, the Association has only been able to maintain and upkeep the building at a basic level.32 See pages 16, “Commemorative Issue for the 186th Anniversary of the Penang Kar Yin Fee Kon”. MR.ZĒNG HUĪQĪNG is the President of the Association from 1992 to 1995.33 See George Town UNESCO World Heritage Site Special Area Plan Volume II: Development Controlgenerally.
4211. Ancestral Tablets and Conservation Works (2019)The Association’s building at No. 22 Property currently houses approximately 319 ancestral tablets belonging to our former members and their families, enshrined on the first floor. In traditional Chinese clan houses, the founding ancestor’s tablet is normally placed at the most prominent central position within the shrine. However, as the Association is not a single-surname clan but a collective organisation of townsmen from Jiāyìngzhōu, Guǎngdōng, such an arrangement would not be appropriate.Instead, the Association places at the centre of the shrine two collective tablets—the “General Ancestral Tablet of the Ancestors from the Five Prefectures during the Qing Dynasty” (皇清显祖考妣五属先人总神位) and the “General Tablet of the Departed Great-Grandparents from the Five Prefectures of Jiāyìng” (嘉应五属列曾祖考妣之神位). These tablets serve the same purpose as the “Jiāyìngzhōu General Tomb” built by the Association at the Báiyún Shān Cemetery in 1838: to provide a place of honour for fellow townsmen from Jiāyìngzhōu.Our forefathers feared that among those townsmen who had journeyed overseas, worked side by side and formed bonds as close as brothers despite bearing different surnames, some might pass away in Penang or be unable to be returned to their native villages for burial, and consequently be left without descendants to perform ancestral rites. To ensure that these departed pioneers would continue to receive offerings and remembrance and would not fade into obscurity, our predecessors established these general tablets and the general tomb. This reflects the Hakka humanitarian belief that the departed should have a place for their souls to rest and a site where their spirits may be honoured.The scope of these general tablets and the general tomb was never confined solely to the earliest townsmen. From the outset, they served not only pioneers who died without descendants, but also those who, though they may once have had
43family or fellow townsmen, ultimately had no one to continue the ancestral rites on their behalf. Over time, their role expanded to embrace all Jiāyìngzhōu townsmen, regardless of whether they had surviving family or peers to honour them. In this way, every townsman, whether early arrivals or members of later generations, was assured the dignity of continued ancestral rites and remembrance.It is unfortunate that no records have survived to indicate when the practice of enshrining ancestral tablets first commenced. However, the presence of Jiāyìng migrants in Penang as early as the late eighteenth century, including the earliest known Jiāyìng tomb dated 179934, combined with the fact that the Association had already established its premises by the early nineteenth century, provides strong grounds to infer that the practice may have commenced during this period, or around the time of the establishment of the General Tomb in 1838.In 2019, Committee Member MR. CHEN CHONG PENG35 generously contributed RM50,000.00 to enable the Association to carry out essential conservation and repair works on the historically valuable ancestral tablets housed in the shrine. These works included repairing the structural base supporting the ancestral tablets, replacing the two existing tin incense burners with large engraved bronze incense burners, and verifying and documenting the original placement and inscribed names of all tablets for proper archival preservation. The total cost of these conservation works amounted to RM29,044.00, ensuring the continued safeguarding of our cultural and ancestral heritage.12. Reconstruction of Toilets (2021)During the challenging period of the COVID-19 pandemic, many repair and improvement works required attention. However, given the prevailing circum34 See Figure 15, page 134.35 MR. CHEN CHONG PENG is MR. ZĒNG HUĪQĪNG’s second son.
44stances and financial constraints, the Association resolved to prioritise only one project—the reconstruction of the toilets on the first floor of No. 24, King Street, which had become an urgent necessity.In 2021, the Association complied with all regulatory requirements, secured the necessary approvals, and proceeded with the reconstruction works, incurring a total expenditure of RM81,770.00.The project was made possible through the support and generosity of various parties. The State Government awarded a grant of RM30,000.00 to assist with the works, while MR. CHEN CHONG PENG again generously contributed an additional RM70,000.00 towards the project cost. His benevolence and selfless support greatly alleviated the Association’s financial burden and inspired fellow committee members and members alike to work together in safeguarding our historic building and its interior features. The Association hereby expresses its heartfelt gratitude and highest respect to MR. CHEN for his selfless dedication. 13. Government-Funded Repair Incentives (2024–2025)In January 2024, George Town World Heritage Incorporated launched the Repair Incentives for Category I & II Heritage Buildings scheme, funded by the Federal Government of Malaysia, to support the preservation and management of the George Town UNESCO World Heritage Site. The Association applied and obtained funding of RM148,750.00 for No. 22 Property and RM148,500.00 for No. 24 Property respectively. Under the scheme, George Town World Heritage Incorporated makes payments directly to the appointed contractor. The Government-funded repair works under the Repair Incentives for Category I & II Heritage Buildings scheme included:-(a) Heritage Facade & Shanghai Plaster Repairs
45(i) Cleaning and repairing broken Shanghai plaster to match original texture(ii) Washing and repainting external side and rear walls(iii) Cleaning and repairing plaster at soffits, balcony underside, and signature areas(b) Building Envelope & Structure(i) RC cornices top & bottom surface repairs (crack repair, waterproofing, screeding)(ii) RC roof slab waterproofing and crack repairs(iii) RC balcony slab repairs at No. 22 Property(iv) Roof party wall waterproofing(v) Removal of vegetation and unwanted plant growth(c) Drainage Works(i) Repair loose drainage top-edge tiles and realign with existing tiles(ii) Repair of broken bricks at front drains(iii) Cleaning of external drains and corridor floor(d) Doors, Gates, Windows (Heritage Restoration)(i) Repair of main timber solid doors (different sizes at Nos. 22 and 24 Property)(ii) Repair of scissor gates & mild-steel folding gates(iii) Repair of window frames and crafted glass panel windows(iv) Repainting of mild-steel grills(v) Replacement of missing mild-steel grills(vi) Repair of circular windows, timber windows and crafted panes(e) Internal & External Painting(i) Internal walls, ceilings, corridor walls, soffits (ground & first floors)(ii) Repainting of side walls facing Lebuh Gereja
46(iii) Repair and repaint Chinese plaque and couplet at main entrance(f) Mechanical & Electrical (Basic Repairs Only)(i) Reorganising existing wiring & removing damaged wires(ii) Relocation of TNB meter (No. 24 Property)(iii) Air-con compressor relocations (limited scope)(iv) Removal of old 3-phase DB (No. 22 Property)(v) Installation of basic lighting points and power points (No. 22 Property)14. Additional Improvements Undertaken by the Association (2024–2025)In addition, the Association expended a total of RM43,792.71 to carry out the following improvement works, of which RM39,186.00 was funded from the remaining balance of MR. CHEN CHONG PENG’s contribution:(a) Building Envelope & Structural Works(i) Replacement of gutter at the air well of No. 22 Property(ii) Replacement of damaged roof tiles and waterproofing(iii) Inspection and treatment of the timber roof structure(iv) Installation of stainless steel roof capping and flashing between Nos. 22 and 24 Properties(b) Windows & Doors(i) Repair\/replacement of wooden doors(ii) Repair\/replacement of timber windows and crafted glass panes(iii) Repair\/replacement of missing mild-steel grills(iv) Installation of 8-blade and 11-blade louvres at the kitchen, pantry, and various rooms(v) Removal of paint from existing glass blades and restoration of wooden window panels.
47(vi) Replacement of bronze door knockers at the main entrance (ground floor).(c) Interior Works(i) Repainting of internal walls of the first floor (No. 24 Property)(ii) Reorganisation and upgrading of wiring(iii) Floor cleaning and finishing(iv) Repair\/replacement of basins and ventilation pipes(v) Repainting of crafted timber elements(vi) Installation of kitchen facilities on the first floor of No. 24 Property(d) Dragon Deity Tablet Conservation Works(i) Conservation and repair of the dragon deity tablet located at the base of the shrine.(e) Safety & Compliance Works(i) Replacement\/addition of dry-powder fire extinguishers(ii) Obtaining BOMBA (Fire Department) certification(iii) CCTV installation(iv) Installation of eight exit signages at the office, main entrance,lobby and kitchen(v) Installation of fifteen emergency lights at office and other lighting points(vi) Addition of eight more emergency lights(f) Electrical System Upgrading(i) Installation of a new three-phase main switchboard (MSB),consolidation of existing Distribution Boards (DBs), and cable routing to the meter room(ii) Laying of 10mm × 4mm² E-type power cable from the main DB to the sub-DB(iii) Installation of two 14-way MSI DBs equipped with MCCB, ELCB, and MCB
48(iv) Upgrading of electrical systems throughout the building(g) Lighting Works(i) Replacement of six LED downlights with 10W daylight LED bulbs (including installation)(ii) Installation of six new LED downlights with 10W daylight LED bulbs (including installation)(iii) Installation of six new downlight points(iv) Replacement of the lantern in front of the shrine(v) Installation of a lantern at the ground floor staircase entrance(vi) Installation of two lanterns at the ground floor main entranceThe foregoing illustrates the Association’s continuing commitment to the preservation, maintenance and enhancement of its heritage building at Nos. 22 and 24 Properties. While the Government-funded Repair Incentives for Category I & II Heritage Buildings scheme has provided crucial assistance in addressing essential structural and conservation works, the Association has nevertheless borne significant additional costs to undertake complementary improvements at its own expense. 15. Ceremonial Observances (2025)A ground-breaking ceremony was conducted on the 19th day of February 2025, led by the senior presiding monk and attended by the President DATO’ LIEW CHOOK SAN and Committee members, prior to the commencement of the repair works. Upon completion of the repairs works, the soil thanksgiving ritual was solemnly held on the 11th day of July 2025, with the President and Committee members once again in attendance.