Gullick the Builders

Access provided by National University of Singapore (16 Apr 2013 04:12 GMT)

The Builders

J. M. GULLICK

Until 1875 there was no building industry in the western Malay states. In thevillages cooperative effort produced the houses and other structures thatwere required. The larger residences of the ruling class were built bymobilizing villagers to build in the same fashion but on a larger scale. Thecolonial administrators had at first to use the same resources andtechniques to get what they required. Gradually, however, there was achange to a different style using new materials and designs. In response togovernment and commercial needs a building industry evolved. The infor-mation is patchy, but this article attempts to trace how it happened up to1914, when the outbreak of war interrupted the supply of building materialsand imposed a standstill. The main focus is on Kuala Lumpur, but there arereferences to Selangor and Perak generally.

Traditional Malay BuildingThe first step in building aMalay village house was the selection of an auspicioussite; a soil which was ‘a greenish yellow, fragrant scented, tart-tasting loam’would bring prosperity to the occupiers, and the house should be on groundsloping from south to north to ‘bring absolute peacefulness’.1 It was the generalpractice to orientate the house to lie east–west, to minimize the heat of the sun,but principles of geomancy might be applied to produce a different result.2 Forguidance in both supernatural and technical aspects of building his house thevillager might well need the services of a bomoh or pawang, or employ a Malaycarpenter. For labour he would call on ‘his sons and neighbours’ as part of thetraditional reciprocity of village life.3 After clearing and levelling the site, a partyunder the leadership of the experts, ceremonial and technical, set off into theforest to select, fell and extract the timber required for the main frame of thehouse. They timed their departure for the end of the dry season so that the

JMBRAS, VOL. 85, Part 2 (2012), pp. 79–98

79

* J. M. Gullick, on retiring from the Malayan Civil Service (1945–57), pursued a legal andbusiness career in London. He is the author of some 80 books and articles on Malayanhistory, and is the most prolific post-war contributor to this Journal.

1 Skeat (1900: 141) on the site. Chen (1998) ‘Vernacular Houses of the Indigenous Communi-ties’ includes several informative and illustrated short essays. Chen (2007) himself describesthe changing style of the Malay house. Hilton (1956 and 1992) gives much detail relevantto the main theme of this paper. Gibbs (1987) is very well-illustrated, but his text, in apopular style, does not give the sources for his statements, some at variance with otherpublished work. These are merely selections, found helpful in this paper, from a largenumber of titles in this field.

2 ‘… traditionally built on an axis running from east to west’, Hilton (1956: 136). ‘The arrange-ment … appears to follow no special plan’, Noone (1948: 126). Geomancy in NW Malaya.Gibbs (1987: 79).

3 Winstedt (1909: 3).

8MBRAS 2012

impending rains would raise the river level sufficiently to float the logs, and theytook with them ‘provisions and equipment for up to three months’.4 The treesselected were often cengal (Balanocarpus heimii), as ‘a hard dense wood’; theaesthetics of its appearance (when the house was built) were a factor as much asits strength.5 After ceremonial to placate the spirits of the forest—felling treeswas dangerous work—the selected trees were felled, and the branches cut off sothat the logs could be hauled to the riverbank by buffaloes or, if available, byelephant. Before the work of erection began there was a feast and a ceremony inwhich the woman who was to be mistress of the house (ibu rumah) had a part toplay.6 To prolong the life of the upright posts they were not placed in holes in thedamp soil but on top of short pillars or footings of more durable material—hard-wood, laterite, brick or cement (at various periods).7 The erection of the centralpost (tiang seri) came first andwas attended by special ceremony, including tyinground it pieces of cloth. The outer posts were assembled as frames with horizon-tal beams attached and placed on their pillars, without any attachment, i.e. theweight of the structure held them in place.8

Much of the literature describes the differences of size, structure and styleof Malay houses. But there was a basic technique which determined theiressential characteristics. The size of the house was determined by the number ofposts (tiang). A 9-post house was the minimum, though a 12-post structure(including a front verandah—serambi) was more common:

o o o o o oo o o o o oo o o o o o

front serambio o o

front

The uniform interval (ruang) between posts was about 9 feet, calculated bymeasuring from finger tip to finger tip across the outstretched arms of themistress of the house and adding one half, i.e. 1½ depa.9 The posts were 5 inchessquare and the horizontal beams 1½ inches wide and up to 5 inches in depth.No nails were used and the crossbeams were slotted into the upright posts by

J. M. GULLICK

80

4 Salinger (1994: 87).5 Ibid. Beamish and Ferguson (1985: 14). Gibbs (1987: 80) states that the nine uprights

(tiang) of a standard house must be cut from the same log and erected in the samerelative positions as they held in the log.

6 Noone (1948: 131); Gibbs (1987: 74).7 Hilton (1965: 137). Gibbs (1987: 70) states that ‘originally’ the posts were buried in the

ground and that later rocks were dragged into place and chiselled into shape.8 Chen (1998: 22–3) and Gibbs (1987: 94–5) have diagrams showing the sequence of

assembling the framework in place. Skeat (1900: 143–5) and Evans (1911: 211) summarizedin Gullick (1987: 182) on the ceremonial.

9 Chen (1998: 16); Gibbs (1987: 73); Hilton (1992: 41).

mortise joints, tightened by hammering in wedges. The beams to support thefloor were about 4 ft above ground and the upper beams to support the roof wereat head height above that. Experience had shown that these measurements gavethe required stability and rigidity.10 The house itself could be larger by increasingthe number of posts, and additions—original or added later—could provide akitchen (dapur) or porch; there were also several varieties of roof. Thenon-load-bearing walls and the floors were of different kinds of local materials.The purpose of this short and no doubt inadequate summary is to illustrate andsupport the proposition that housebuilding in a Malay village was a craft butnot a profession. There were no builders as such.

Winstedt observed that ‘the prince’s palace was only a carbon copy on alarger scale’ of a villager’s house. But its creation required mobilization ofmanpower on a different scale. ‘The men of one hamlet would build the centralhall, the men of another the kitchen, the men of yet another the front hall ofaudience; a court official or some Javanese or Bugis adventurer would do thecarving. Every man brought his own adze and chopper.’11 In some cases,however, a Malay grandee imported a Chinese carpenter to do the job.12 If thework or materials were out of the ordinary, he might be obliged to do so. Whenthe Maharaja Lela of Pasir Salak fortified his house in October 1875 in prepara-tion for the coming revolt he employed a gang of seven or eight Javanese andChinese, presumably as specialists to supplement the general mobilization of hispeople.13 In the 1860s Raja Abdullah of Klang built the lower storey of hisgodown in brick, for which he must have imported Chinese masons, probablyfrom Malacca.14

The Pioneers of the New AgeWhen they arrived the colonial administrators had to make do with existingbuildings of the kind just described. In 1879 Isabella Bird found the district officerat Kuala Selangor still living in ‘a wretched habitation’ within the ruins of thefort ‘with a wall of stones and earth round it’.15 First on the scene in Selangor wasFrank Swettenham, sent in August 1874 to Bandar Langat, where he and hisdisconsolate police escort at first occupied ‘a very unattractive residence … anold stockade with walls made of logs of wood … a high-pitched roof of palmleaves, very far fromwatertight’. They slept on top of the log walls to avoid beingswamped by the high tides.16 As a more ‘des res’ the Sultan offered Swettenhamthe astana which would be vacant when he moved to Jugra. Swettenham

THE BUILDERS

81

10 Hilton (1992: 41–7).11 Winstedt (1909: 3). See also Chen (1998: 38).12 Winstedt (1909: 1).13 PCE (1876) (CO 273/86: 454, 540; CO 273/88: 27, 46).14 Sheppard (1986: 23). It still stands as the Muzium Timah. Chin, Chen and Gullick (2003:

28).15 Bird (1883: 243).16 Swettenham (1948: 185).

declined this and also a nearby house (‘very dirty’) and the Sultan ‘then took meto a house in the course of building… a good house asMalay houses go’.17 Howhe got it completed illustrates the state of the local building industry at that time.The work went on ‘very very slowly’ and four months passed before Swettenhammoved into a house which was ‘doorless and partly windowless, but still it is ahouse and in 6 months may be made actually comfortable’. There was a lack ofmaterials, even ‘wood’, and the Sultan had to send toMalacca for labour to carryout a programme that included demolition of ‘useless abandoned houses’ andwork on five or six new ones in the course of building.18 When Emily Innesmoved in a couple of years later she described it as ‘an ordinary Malaywigwam’.19

In Perak, Birch had first to achieve a settlement of the succession disputebetween sultans Ismail and Abdullah and induce the latter to settle at BatakRabit, with Birch himself nearby at Bandar Bahru (previously Ayer Mati). Hethen planned to expend $1200 on an astana for Abdullah and $350–400 on aResidency for himself. For the latter it was necessary to import ‘a party of house-builders’ from Province Wellesley ‘as it is impossible to get Perak Malays towork’. There was no difficulty over a supply of squared timber and sawn planks,of which there was an exportable surplus. ‘Chinese sawyers and carpenters[were] rapidly coming into the country’ to work for contractors such as ChengTee, who was building shophouses. But there were delays and Birch did notmove into his new abode until January 1875, finding it ‘a very nice one, I slept init and was very comfortable’.20

At Klang the first Resident (Davidson) occupied a house belonging to aMalay notable, while using the Gedong Raja Abdullah as offices. At Taiping theAssistant Resident, T. C. S. Speedy, at first used the house within a brick defen-sive perimeter that theMentri of Larut had built in the 1860s.21WhenHugh Lowarrived at Kuala Kangsar in April 1877 he moved into what had been the houseof CheMida, finding it ‘miserably uncomfortable’. Two years later a visitor foundit ‘as unpretending a dwelling as can be. It keeps out the sun and rain, and givesall the comfort which is needed in this climate, but nothing more.’22 Lowremained parsimonious over expenditure of public funds on buildings through-out his long tenure as Resident (1877–89), but nonetheless lived in style with ‘amagnificent Oriental butler’ and ‘exquisite’ linen, china, etc.23 He arrived too lateto prevent Speedy from building a splendid house on a hill overlooking Taiping,‘large and lofty and thoroughly draughty’with a main room 30 ft by 60 ft and 20

J. M. GULLICK

82

17 Swettenham (1975: 109, 111, 118). ‘des res’ is estate agents’ jargon for a desirable residence.18 Ibid.: 137, 146, 174.19 Innes (1885: 15). She has a drawing of it as the frontispiece of her vol. 1.20 Birch (1976: 111–12, 132, 161–2, 196, 385–7). A photograph was taken showing the front of

the Residency when Jervois visited Perak in September 1875. Falconer and Gullick (1989).21 Swettenham (1975: 206). Douglas diary 6 June 1876. Nazrin Shah (2006: 109) has an illustra-

tion of Speedy’s original accommodation.22 Low (1955: 36); Bird (1883: 305).23 Bird (1883: 306).

ft high, with ‘a great bow window without glass opening on an immenseverandah like the forecastle of a great Clyde steamer’.24 On first seeing it Lowcondemned it as ‘too large for the necessities of the officer who inhabits it’, notingwith sour satisfaction that it was also ‘too large for the site … as the land isslipping on the east side in such a manner as to endanger the building’.25

Speedy’s mansion seems to have been in traditional Malay form, though itmay have been built by Chinese from Taiping town at the foot of the hill. Itslength of 60 ft was less than the 80 ft long ‘temporary residence’ built for SultanAbdullah. As the modular pattern of posts could be multiplied, mere sizepresented no problem. It permittedAbdullah’s astana to have a large portico anda covered passage to a godown.26 But the larger the structure the greater wasthe required mobilization of labour and use of materials to produce somethingwith a short life.27 Hornaday, camping in 1878 under the leaking roof of the head-man of Jeram, ‘supposed that, like the man of Arkansaw, when it rained [hishost] couldn’t fix the roof and when it did not rain [he] didn’t need to’.28 It wascommon Malay practice, however, to renew the roof and, as mentioned above,more durable laterite, brick or cement might be used in the supporting pillarsinstead of hardwood.29

During their brief occupation of Kuala Selangor in 1785 the Dutch rebuiltthe Malay forts with brick walls, and mention has been made of the Mentri’sdefensive perimeter at Matang (Larut).30 The use of bricks in the structure wasat this time still restricted by the need—in most instances—to import bricks, aheavy and bulky cargo, from the Straits Settlements. Sometimes ships loadedthem as ballast for the outward voyage.As late as 1883, after SultanAbdul Samadhadmoved from Bandar Langat to Jugra, his government sought his permissionto dismantle the brick pillars of the abandoned astana for re-use in building apolice station.31

However, RajaAbdullah had built in Klang in 1856 a modified ‘transitionalMalay house’ which was already used in the Straits Settlements towns.32 In thetraditional house the need for rigidity required that the lowest tier of horizontalbeams, supporting the floor, was placed not more than about 4 ft above theground.33 The space under the floor could be used for storage, hen coops—and

THE BUILDERS

83

24 Ibid.: 280.25 Low (1955: 34). It was replaced within a few years by another Residency on a different site

(Barlow 1995: 321).26 Birch (1976: 275); Hilton (1992: 39).27 Birch (1976: 111, 226) reckoned that an atap roof would last only 7 years and the timber

posts 8.28 Hornaday (1993: 14).29 Hilton (1956: 137) and see Note 7 above.30 van Hagersdorp (1959); Nazrin Shah (2006: 109).31 Diary of the Collector, Kuala Langat, 9 and 23 August 1883.32 Chen (2007: 18). It was an adapted model of the traditional Malay house but more in use

by Europeans than Malays. Sheppard (1986: 23) offers a conjectural picture of the buildingunder construction.

33 Hilton (1992: 46).

rubbish dropped through the slatted floor—but lacked the height needed forliving space. In the modified model the pillars (of brick) were built to a height ofsay 8 ft to support a timber frame upper floor, and the space beneath it becamethe lower part (often open-sided) of a two-storey house. This model required aconsiderable quantity of bricks and—probably—the expertise of Chinesebuilders from the Straits Settlements. W. B. Douglas, who became Resident ofSelangor in 1876 in succession to Davidson, at first lived ‘in some shabby roomsover a godown’.34 To accommodate his wife and family, waiting in Australia tojoin him, he set about building a Residency in the modified style on the hill over-looking the Klang fort. He asked Syed Zin, then in charge of public works, to‘lay out the new Residence’, the first recorded case of quasi-professionaldesign.35 Later he mentions ‘carpenters laying down the planks of my house’and roofing it, which took a week.36 When he moved in ‘the lower part of thehouse, which [was] supported on pillars, [was] mainly open, and [was] used forbilliard-room, church, lounging-room, afternoon tea-room and audience-room’.37 Its upper floor had six bedrooms with verandahs and five bathrooms.38

The management of the Public Works Department (PWD) passed fromSyed Zin to anAustralian surveyor, D. D. Daly, but without much improvementin performance.39 When Daly was dismissed in 1882 an official enquiry foundthat in the Selangor PWD there ‘was really no organization at all ... and it isdifficult to say how Mr Daly employed his time’. The three subordinates,however, included J. H. Klyne, a surveyor judged to be ‘a painstaking zealous of-ficer’ of whommore is said below. The paperwork was deficient; no estimates orbills of quantity were prepared.40 The situation much improved with the

J. M. GULLICK

84

34 Innes (1885: I/7), referring to the upper floor of the Gedong Raja Abdullah. She was not tooproud to accept his offer of ‘a bare wooden garret’ as overnight accommodation (Ibid).

35 Douglas diary 29 August and 30 September 1876. Syed Zin bin Syed Puteh al-Habshi wasa versatile Penang businessman who had been chief of staff to Tunku Kudin during theSelangor civil war (1867–73). After the war he had charge of government public works,survey and lands departments. He may have had some practical knowledge of buildingand/or surveying, but there is nothing to suggest that he had professional qualifications(Gullick 2004: 89). On retiring he acquired plantations around Klang, but did little withthem (‘AR Selangor’ 1890 Appx F).

36 Ibid.: 12, 14 and 22 January 1877.37 Bird (1883: 217). As first built it had an atap roof (Bird. 1883: 217), but when rebuilt at Kuala

Lumpur it had a tiled roof (Gullick 2007: Plate 7)). See also Chen (2007: 19) for pictures ofother houses of this type. The bricks were probably imported. Yap Ah Loy had not yetestablished his Kuala Lumpur brickfield.

38 Barlow (1995: 232), citing Sel Sec 76/82. As soon as money could be found, Swettenham(Resident 1882–9) replaced it with a more convenient Residency (still standing) (Barlow1992: 28).

39 Daly was a son-in-law of Douglas; both were dismissed in 1882.40 Report enclosed with SSD 3 May 1882. Of Major H. E. (Sir Henry) McCallum, RE, author

of the report, it was said ‘whenever there was work to be done he was a demon’. Make-peace, Brooke, and Braddell (1921: II/462) summarizes the career (ending with the gover-norships of Nigeria and Newfoundland) of a man of ‘abundant energy’ and intolerant ofthose who lacked it. At this time he was with the PWD SS.

appointment, as Daly’s successor, of H. F. Bellamy,AMICE, andA. C. A. Norman,ARIBA, as his deputy. Neither was a man to set the Klang River on fire, but thedepartmental routine of building offices, quarters, police stations, hospitals etc.was now based on drawing office designs, contract specifications, and adequaterecords. In Perak, the situation was no better. The state engineer designed bridgesthat collapsed, but he survived and prospered—to retire in 1905 as DPW FMS,because—unkind rumour said—his wife was a particular friend of Swetten-ham.41

In these circumstances much depended on the subordinate PWD staff andthe contractors to whom some of the larger road construction and buildingprojects were let. It is likely that John Klyne, mentioned above, had learnt survey-ing in the Straits Settlements and that drawing office staff also came from there.Klyne, after whom ‘Klyne Street’ (Jalan Lekiu) in Kuala Lumpur was named, hadcome to Klang in the early 1870s and joined the PWD in 1877. His tasks includedsupervision of Damansara Road and of the offshore lighthouse project. Afterretiring from the PWD he became a contractor and he owned a 60-acre coconutestate on Ampang Road.42 He was a leading member of the Eurasian RomanCatholic community, a fine shot and one of the groupwho founded the Selangormuseum; he stored its natural history specimens in his house until other arrange-ments could be made.43 His colleague, Bristow, was a storekeeper and laboursupervisor.44 There must have been others of the type who moved from theStraits Settlements to find a useful role in the expanding economy of Selangor.

Expansion in the 1880sVarious events of the 1880s much enlarged the scale of building construction.From 1875 to 1879 the low price of tin constrained the pace of development, butone incidental effect was that Yap Ah Loy diverted labour from his mines toopening a brickfield (fromwhich the ‘Brickfields’ area of Kuala Lumpur derivesits name). He planned to export bricks and tiles to Singapore, in competitionwith such materials from Hong Kong. YapAh Loy’s products were of ‘excellent’quality, though the clay used in making tiles was ‘peculiar’ and the tiles ‘thinand light… stronger andmore durable than ordinary roofing tiles’. Although thehoped-for export trade did not materialize, perhaps because of high transportcosts, the brickfields were still producing in 1879 for local use, and were a usefulresource when the building boom came in the 1880s.45

THE BUILDERS

85

41 Barlow (1995: index entries ‘Caulfeild, Francis’ and ‘Caulfeild, Helen Isabel’). Caulfeild wasalso an exceptionally incompetent commandant of the FMSVF.

42 SJ 5 (1897: 352) gives a brief obituary and there are numerous references to him in the diaryof Bloomfield Douglas.

43 SJ 1 (1893: 298); Robson (2001: 5). His brother was a government apothecary, and the son ofone or other of them was a frequent prizewinner at the Victoria Institution.

44 SSD 3 May 1882. See Note 40 above.45 Swettenham (1878), quoted in Gullick (2000: 23); Bird (1883: 200) on 1879.

The sharp rise in the price of tin late in 1879 led to a population increase atKuala Lumpur of one-third in a single year and contributed to the decision tomove the state capital upriver from Klang in mid-1880. Overcrowding andinadequate hygiene made the rubbish-strewn streets ‘pestilential’.46 A fire, oncestarted, spread rapidly across the narrow lanes; one of the worst occurred on4 January 1881, making 500 people homeless and causing damage estimated at$100,000.47When fire broke out the citizens either grabbed their portable posses-sions and fled or ‘awaited events in dumb stupidity’.48 In 1884 Bellamy offeredto form a volunteer (predominantly European) Kuala Lumpur fire brigade, if thegovernment would provide the engines (pumps on carts drawn by shire horses);in 1888 the brigade acquired a pump powered by a steam engine, which coulddischarge 350 gallons of water a minute on the conflagration.49 1884 also sawthe launch of a more fundamental solution to these problems, with the completerebuilding, street by street, of central Kuala Lumpur, leading to ‘the substitutionin all the principal streets of brick houses with tiled roofs for the adobe, orwooden huts, thatched with palm leaves’.50 Then ‘some of the wealthier traders’began to build ‘villa residences’ on the outskirts of the town, keeping theconstruction boom going, as shown by the following figures of houses built inKuala Lumpur:51

Year Houses built

1884 2341885 2181886 1591887 n.a.1888 180

The government’s substantial public works programme included rebuilding itsmain offices at a cost of $30,000, a newmarket ($43,000), much-needed additionsto its hospitals and a new Residency.52 A new Chinese theatre ‘of permanentmaterials’ was built with a capacity of 3,000, and the three largest Chinesegroups—Hakka, Cantonese and Hokkien—each built ‘very handsome’ kongsihouses, employing—presumably—builders from the Straits Settlements.53

J. M. GULLICK

86

46 SSD, 27 October 1882.47 Gullick (2000: 40) based on SSF 18/1881 and other Sel Sec files.48 Rathborne (1898: 108).49 ‘AR Selangor’ from 1884 onwards and the annual reports of the fire brigade published (from

1890) in SGG. Gullick (2000: 125) and Gullick (2007: index entries ‘Fire Brigade’).50 ‘AR Selangor’ 1885, para 94. See Note 87 below.51 ‘AR Selangor’ 1884–8; Gullick (2000: 45).52 ‘AR Selangor’ 1885, paras 40, 46 and 49; ‘AR Selangor’ 1887, para 63; ‘AR Selangor’ 1888,

para 58; Barlow (1992); Ghafar Ahmad (1997).53 ‘AR Selangor’ 1888. See Chen (1998) on mosques, temples, churches, etc.

There was a corresponding expansion in the supply of building materials.Between 1886 and 1888, for example, the number of brick kilns in Selangor morethan doubled—from 15 to 33—as did the number of lime kilns—from 8 to 16.54There were growing signs of pressure on resources. Hardwood timber ‘balks’that had cost $1.90 in 1887 had risen to $4.50 in 1888 despite the opening of anew sawmill.55

There were also changes in architectural design. The government buildingsof the mid-1880s included some in a very basic ‘classical’ style, with pillaredfronts from ground to first-floor roof, following the model of Coleman’sbuildings in Singapore.56 In rebuilding their business premises in more robustmaterials the towkays made better use of the site by adopting the model of atwo-storey shophouse already common in the Straits Settlements in place of theprevious single-storey shacks.57 At first they did not decorate the upper storeyfrontages in ‘Chinese baroque’ style, but embellishment soon came.58

The ContractorsIn the late 1870s the term ‘contractor’ denoted a small-scale entrepreneur—aMalay or Chinese carpenter who built houses, or even a Bugis aristocrat who,after the tradition of his community, had turned to trade. One such was RajaMahomed (usually ‘Mat’) of Tanjong Gamok, who was apparently a kinsman orconnection of Raja Jumaat, chief of nearby Lukut. In 1876 Raja Mat had to ‘workhard’ to support his family by selling timber and other forest products, repairingwooden launches, etc. In 1876, for example, he supplied a quantity of planks1 foot by 8 inches by 1 inch for $150 which were cheaper and better than thosethe government could obtain from Malacca; presumably he bought them fromlocal sawyers. When the coastal strip was ceded to Negri Sembilan Raja Mat wasgranted a compensatory pension of $50 pm and quit the timber trade to live like

THE BUILDERS

87

54 ‘AR Selangor’ 1886 and 1888.55 ‘AR Selangor’ 1888. Presumably forest trees within easy reach had been felled and the

loggers had to go further afield. ‘The cost of freight… reduces the actual value of this forest’in the Klang valley (Ridley 1896: 444).

56 Ghafar Ahmad (1997: 24–7) reproduces the list of important buildings which Normanclaimed to have designed and his Figure 3 (the government offices) illustrates the ‘classical’style. Norman, during his apprenticeship in the west of England, hadworked on the designof town halls, etc. in this style. He also designed the gothic St Mary’s Church (Cathedral)and the ‘Tudor’ Selangor Club, but in 1901 the Resident (Belfield) said that ‘in a number ofinstances’Normanmade ‘misleading’ claims to the design or construction of buildings withwhich ‘he had little or nothing’ to do (Gullick 1992: 36), quoting official minutes. See Note70 below and Hancock (1986).

57 Lim (1993).58 A photograph taken in 1884 (reproduced in Gullick (2000) as Plate 1) shows shophouses

with a plain front. SSD 4 October 1886, however, refers to ‘neat brick houses … often gailypainted and decorated with elaborate carvings’ (quoted in Gullick 2000: 45). Gullick (2000:Plate 8); Lim (1993: 56–60).

a gentleman on that.59 But modest enterprises like that could not meet thedemands of the Klang–Kuala Lumpur railway construction project (1884–6). Thestate government imported a railway construction expert from Ceylon, platelayers from Bengal and, of course, the lengths of iron railway line.60 Although theline crossed fairly level terrain there were some considerable ‘earthworks’, i.e.cuttings and embankments, and amassive quantity of hardwood timber, cut intosleepers 6½ feet long, was required.61 This was an opportunity, though of limitedduration, for a new species of contractors who appeared in the early 1880s.

There was a considerable influx of planters from Ceylon (Sri Lanka) who,while they waited for their coffee to come into bearing, found work for theirlabourers on government contracts.62 The bread-and-butter work was roadconstruction, and Swettenham (Resident of Selangor 1882–9) acknowledged hisdebt to Heslop Hill, who had ‘driven bridlepaths through the country’.63 But therailway was a real bonanza which for a couple of years supported the steam-powered sawmill established by Hill and Rathborne and operated by importedIndian technicians. It was, however, a venture which was ten years ahead of itstime, for in normal conditions ‘European machinery [could] not compete withthe patient labour of the Chinese sawyer’ and there was competition from asawmill set up in Kuala Lumpur by ‘a Tamil company’. In the course of its‘melancholy history’ the sawmill passed through various hands, and movedbetween Klang and Kuala Lumpur until Loke Yew, who could spot a bargain,bought it at an advantageous price.64

The contract for the railway earthworks went to another planter fromCeylon, D. G. Gordon, in partnership with W. W. (‘Tim’) Bailey, proprietor ofHighlands and Lowlands estate at Klang.65 They toiled on in face of difficulty,especially at the Klang end which was allocated to Bailey.66 Later, Gordon wasone of several contractors who completed the muchmore difficult earthworks ofthe extension of the line from Kuala Lumpur to Ulu Selangor.67 This was not

J. M. GULLICK

88

59 Douglas diary 29 April and 5 August 1876, 4 February 1877, 29 June 1879 and 21 January1882.

60 Kaur (1985: 16–19); Ibid.: 24 on Spence Moss; FMS Railway (1935).61 A mile of line required almost 2,000 sleepers, obtained by the felling of 21 trees ‘of the

largest size’ (Ridley 1896: 444).62 Tate (1996: Chapter 11 ‘The Men from Ceylon’).63 Swettenham (1942: 82).64 SJ 2 (1894: 414) reprinted in Gullick (2007: 50) dates this venture to 1887, but ‘AR Selangor’

1883, para 54, records the erection of the mill (at Klang) in 1883. On Hill and Rathborne seeGullick (2000: 55, 71). Tamil sawmill ‘AR Selangor’ 1884 para 119. A Chinese sawmill wasestablished in 1888 (‘AR Selangor’ 1888).

65 Tate (1996: 227).66 Resident’s speech at the opening of the railway in 1886, reported in Straits Times 22

September 1886, reprinted in FMS Railways (1935) and in Gullick (1955: 161).67 The contract had originally been given to Campbell & Co., also from Ceylon, but they ran

into difficulties and were replaced. SJ 1 (1893: 373) reprinted in Gullick (2007: 134). Gordonalso built—on a ‘no fee’ basis—the embankment in the Lake Gardens (Tasik Perdana) (SJ 2(1893: 10)). In 1896 ill-health obliged him to return to Ceylon (SJ 3 (1896: 365)).

‘hi-tech’work, but required skill in the mundane task of managing ‘a large forceof Chinese and Malay labourers’, for which Gordon was given ‘great credit’.68

The Neo-Saracenic StyleBy 1887 the growing problem of sickness, mainly malaria and beri-beri, amongthe much increased Chinese labour force on the tin mines led to a decision tobuild a ‘pauper’ hospital for indigent miners on a new site at the north end ofKuala Lumpur.69 The plan ‘contemplate[d] the erection of ten wards’ over aperiod of years, and a typical ward was to be a large and airy single-storey shed,140 feet long, 40 feet wide and 26 feet high, with a plank floor overlaying acement base.70 It was a large but not essentially difficult project which wasrunning at its peak when Bellamy, dependable though not dynamic, went onleave and Norman, as his deputy in the PWD, had to take charge under thecritical eye of the newly appointed Resident, W. E. Maxwell, who ‘loathedincompetence’.71 Norman’s inability to keep contractors up to the mark ledMaxwell to introduce new blood into the PWD in the person of C. E. Spooner, ontransfer from Ceylon.72 Bellamy accepted with good grace demotion to deputystate engineer. Norman, ‘found unfit for any executive appointment’, wasconfined to the duties of government architect, at which he was deemed‘competent’.73 In those duties he was assisted (as ‘chief draughtsman’) byR. A. J. Bidwell, who although not so highly qualified had much more naturaltalent. Bidwell became disenchanted with Norman claiming credit for his workand departed to make a very successful career as an architect in Singapore. Hewas succeeded by A. B. Hubback, of whom more is said later.74

It is unnecessary to repeat here at length how Maxwell decided to ‘adver-tise’ Kuala Lumpur by the erection of an impressive office building. Spooner,with the help of Bidwell, introduced from India to Selangor a new ‘Mahometan’or ‘Neo-Saracenic’ style, beginning with the Bangunan Sultan Abdul Samad(1897). Hubback continued to design in this style several other major buildings,ending with the Kuala Lumpur Railway Station (1911).75 More significant in this

THE BUILDERS

89

68 Resident’s speech at the opening of the railway in 1886, reported in Straits Times 22September 1886, reprinted in FMS Railways (1935) and in Gullick (1955: 161).

69 ‘AR Selangor’ 1887, paras 61–3; ‘AR Selangor’ 1888, para 57, reprinted in Gullick (2000: 85).70 ‘AR Selangor’ 1889, para 45; SJ 4 (1896: 189) reprinted in Gullick (2007: 424).71 Robson (2001: 36).72 ‘AR Selangor’ 1889, paras 63–8; Robson (2001: 46); Wright and Cartwright (1908: 312). After

a decade with the PWD Selangor, Spooner (originally a railway construction engineer)became general manager of the FMS Railways, dying in office in 1909.

73 SSD 25 June 2003; Gullick (1992: 36); Ghafar Ahmad (1997); ‘AR Selangor’ 1891, paras 36–8.74 Gullick (1992: 38). Bidwell was a member of the Architectural Association of London and

had worked for the London County Council. In Singapore he was a partner of Swan &Maclaren (Beamish and Ferguson (1985, index entries ‘Bidwell, RAJ’); Edwards (1990, index‘Architects and Engineers – Bidwell RAJ’); Wright and Cartwright (1908: 627).

75 Gullick (1992).

article is Spooner’s conclusion that existing resources could not provide the hugequantity of building materials needed to build the Bangunan. Apart from theobvious problem of producing millions of bricks, the growing deficiency in thesupply of timber, noted above, had become so severe that in government build-ings generally ‘rollers and axe-squared beams’ were used and timber wasimported from Singapore.76 Spooner’s solution was to establish a ‘PWD factory’,with a 40-hp steam engine to drive a sawmill and metal cutting and drillingmachines. It also included a large brickworks managed by the versatile Gordon& Co.77

The Coming of Metals as Building MaterialsImported iron and steel (and cement) were becoming a significant elementamong the available building materials. In 1888 the Selangor government hadbegun to replace the timber bridges across the Klang River with more durablelattice-girder bridges.78 In 1897 the PWD factory made most of the metal com-ponents for a municipal incinerator for Kuala Lumpur, whose furnaces were 12feet by 8 feet by 12 feet high.79 The design of comparatively complex structureswas done by experts in London and thematerials assembled in Singapore, wherethe leading ‘engineers’ (metal fabricators and assembly contractors) were RileyHargreaves and Howarth Erskine (merged to form United Engineers in 1912).The lattice-girder Connaught Bridge (1890) carried the railway line across theriver to Klang town.80 It stood on cast iron cylinders driven to a depth of some60 feet to stand on rock beneath the mud. It was designed by consulting engi-neers in London, and the metal components were made at Stockton-on-Tees; thebuilding contract was let to Howarth Erskine and the work was supervised byrailway engineers, one local and the other from Ceylon.81 Avery similar combi-nation of UK, Singapore and local resources built a waterworks at Ulu Klang to

J. M. GULLICK

90

76 ‘AR PWD Selangor’ 1892 and 1893, printed in SGG. Note 55 above. In 1893 the price oftimber, brought in over a distance of 12–20 miles, had increased by a further 15%. ‘AR PWDSelangor’ 1893.

77 SJ 2 (1894: 322) reprinted in Gullick (2007: 179); ‘AR PWD Selangor’ 1895. The factory itselfwas managed by W. A. Leach, who had experience of similar work in Johor, Bangkok andBorneo (Ibid.). The Bangunan with its numerous arches was strengthened by the use ofsteel girders. SJ 5 (1897:220) reprinted in Gullick (2007: 183) gives a technical description ofthe structure.

78 First was theMarket Street bridge with a span of 473 feet between abutments. ‘AR Selangor’1888, para 54. Funds for the Java Street and Gombak crossing were allocated in 1891 (‘ARSelangor’ 1891, para 41).

79 SJ 5 (1897: 217) reprinted in Gullick (2007: 32).80 SJ 1 (1892: 75–7) reprinted in Gullick (2007: 141–4) .81 Howarth Erskine also undertookmajor road construction contracts, such as part of the road

to Kuala Lipis, and they were sufficiently encouraged to establish a local branch in KualaLumpur. SJ 3 (1895: 319) reprinted in Gullick (2007: 171); Wright and Cartwright (1908: 647);Makepeace, Brooke and Braddell (1921: 2/200) on the formation of United Engineers in1912.

supply the estimated needs (20 gallons per head per day for 25,000 people) ofKuala Lumpur.82 In addition to the PWD factory the railway, extended northand south from Kuala Lumpur in the 1890s, had a central workshop for itsmechanical maintenance requirements. The contract for its carriage buildingworks was awarded in 1896 to a leading contractor, Ang Kim Seng, at a price of$40,000.83 Step by step, expertise and resources were growing.

Business Premises in the Late Nineteenth CenturyApart from Chinese shophouses there were commercial premises occupied byEuropean firms, few in number until the early twentieth century. In 1886 theSelangor government granted to the Straits Trading Company (STC) the soleright to buy tin ore for export. This decision was in part prompted by the fact that‘native traders and miners find it difficult to obtain cash advances in the [StraitsSettlements] however valuable may be the houses or other property in Selangorwhich they can offer as security’.84 The STC was willing to make advances tominers against future deliveries of ore.85 For this purpose it needed a lot of cash,and so it arranged to let the upper floor of its premises, on Market Street (LebohPasar Besar) west of the river, to the Chartered Bank which, by a fortunate coin-cidence, was about to open a branch.86

The Sanitary BoardUntil 1890 the regulation of building development was uncoordinated. The titleto a town plot might stipulate that a building of specifiedminimum value shouldbe erected within a short period. Rules for the rebuilding of central KualaLumpur in 1884–6 prescribed a minimum street width in the form of a ‘roadreserve’ that was not always observed.87 Fire precautions prohibited usinginflammable materials such as wood and atap in town buildings. Health andamenity objectives gave rise to a number of building rules—the ‘five-foot way’,‘sanitary lanes’ (for nightsoil carts) at the back of shophouses, the concentrationof noisy or smelly activities in buildings in particular parts of the town. ‘KandangKerbau’ was a space reserved for stables and cattle sheds, which might not beadded to domestic premises, though shopkeepers in Batu Road continued to

THE BUILDERS

91

82 SJ 4 (1896: 271) reprinted in Gullick (2007: 271).83 SJ 5 (1896: 2) reprinted in Gullick (2007: 149). See also Note 94 below.84 ‘AR Selangor’ 1885, para 22; ‘AR Selangor’ 1886. The ore could, of course, be smelted locally

and there was no obligation to export. However, charcoal for smelting was becoming scarce.SJ 2 (1893: 103) and 3 (1895: 307) reprinted in Gullick (2007: 114 and 358) refer to a slightlylater period, but the problem had built up over the years (Wong 1965: 157 and 163).

85 SJ 4 (1896: 197) reporting on Chinese New Year 1896, when employers were hard pressedto pay all wages due, as custom required, and the STC gave valuable help in averting ‘pre-dicted general bankruptcy’.

86 Robson (2000: 4) refers to ‘old shophouses’, i.e. STC did not build new offices. SJ 4 (1896:419) refers to its ‘bare walls’.

87 Gullick (2000: 44, 48, 98, 250).

keep untethered goats on their verandahs.88 The energetic W. E. Maxwell hadbeen president of the Penang municipality (as well as chief administrator ofPenang) before he became Resident of Selangor (1889–92) and he recognized theneed for a body to coordinate town services and policy in Kuala Lumpur withdue regard to local opinion. This led to the establishment in 1890 of a ‘SanitaryBoard’, the first of many in the Malay states, with much wider functions thanthat title suggests. The Board’s members included representatives of the PWD,medical and police services and also nominated community representatives.Among its functions was giving (or withholding) approval of new buildings,enforced by a requirement for the submission of drawings of what was to bebuilt. This procedure showed that as late as 1905 ‘with few exceptions the indi-viduals who make a profession of drawing plans in this town are not architects’and their estimates of costs were misleading to their clients. A suggestion that theSanitary Board should provide standard plans for the use of applicants came tonothing.89

Some PersonalitiesIt is likely that the less than proficient draughtsmen had got some grounding intheir work as former employees in a Selangor government drawing office, or inthe Straits Settlements. One such case was A. K. Moosden, who had exceptionaltalent and became a successful architect in Kuala Lumpur. One of his notablebuildings was the three-storey shophouse built in 1905 for Loke Yew and let toChow Kit & Co. It still stands on the corner of JalanMahkamah Tinggi and JalanMahkamah Persekutuan and is now occupied by the Industrial Court.90 Anotherwas Philip Russell, who in 1899 became an apprentice engineer with the Selangorrailway and went on to private practice as an architect, designing buildings forLoke Yew and cooperating with his brother, J. A. Russell, in the design side of thecontract for the construction of the Railway Hotel in Kuala Lumpur.91

Something can be learnt of the building industry at the turn of the twentiethcentury from the construction contract for ‘Carcosa’ built for the Resident-General (Swettenham). The PWD, fully extended by the Bangunan SultanAbdulSamad and other major office buildings, invited tenders for ‘Carcosa’, a verylarge mansion (still standing) on a site in the Lake Gardens (Tasik Perdana).92The successful bid came from Nicholas & Walsh, who advertised themselves as‘architects and contractors’.93 Others who submitted tenders were SanAh Peng,

J. M. GULLICK

92

88 SJ 1 (1893: 290) reprinted in Gullick (2007: 35).89 Khoo Kay Kim (1996: 54), quoting a memorandum by three official members of the board

published in the Malay Mail, January 1905.90 Gullick (2004: 164). Moosden, born in Hong Kong, was a surveyor with the Selangor PWD

in 1892. He appears in the Singapore and Straits Directory for 1929 and died in 1937.91 Clague (1993: 193). Philip Russell died in 1921 (Ibid.: 197).92 Harvey (1999) is a valuable source of contemporary archive material for Carcosa, among

other buildings. See pp. 28, 29, 61, 63 and 65.93 Singapore and Straits Directory (1893), where the firm is styled ‘Nicholas & Co.’.

‘pioneer miner and contractor’ andAng Kim Seng, mentioned above as contrac-tor for building the railway carriage workshops.94 Nicholas had begun his careerin the PWD and his partner, W. Walsh, had been a railway engineer. Nicholashad previously built the first Victoria Institution building (1893) in the HighStreet (Jalan Tun H. S. Lee), the Masonic Hall (1894) and St Mary’s Church(1895).95 The firm had offices on Jalan Raja until the site was cleared for theBangunan Sultan Abdul Samad. Nicholas was a member of the Masonic Lodgeand of the Selangor Planters’Association and was prominent in European sociallife. Apart from the natural gregariousness of ‘a chatty man’, socializing wasdoubtless good for business.96

The rubber boom of the early twentieth century led to a considerable expan-sion in commercial demand for buildings. The Singapore agency houses set upoffices in Kuala Lumpur and other banks followed the lead of the CharteredBank in opening branches. Old Market Square (Medan Pasar) became the pres-tige business and financial centre with the Mercantile Bank premises at one endand the Hongkong & Shanghai Bank at the other. Zacharias & Co., the first im-porters of motor cars, had their showrooms here. In 1906 Loke Yew commis-sioned A. K. Moosden to design a block of shophouses built here in red brick,later known as ‘the Red House’. Another prominent business in the Square wasJ. A. Russell & Co. It was here that rising land values led to the erection of three-storey buildings. Although there was no formal town planning regime until 1920the Sanitary Board recognized that the Square was too important to be left topiecemeal redevelopment, and in 1907 it invitedA. B. Hubback, the governmentarchitect, to prepare design guidelines. As a result, the new buildings, some inneo-classical style, had frontages conforming to uniform height levels.97

Landlords and DevelopersThe design of a building usually reflected the fact that whoever commissionedit intended to occupy it himself. When, for example, John Russell arrived in 1890to establish the government printing department he found the building alreadyerected for it quite inadequate. With Russell’s expert advice a new printing workswas built (in 1899) with sufficient space for large printing presses and widewindows, without the usual exterior verandah, that would admit the maximumamount of light.98 Aproperty ownermight build with a particular tenant in view,

THE BUILDERS

93

94 Harvey (1999: 29); SJ 5 (1896: 2); Lee and Chow (1997: 1, 40). Ang Seng was also one of thecontractors who worked on the Bangunan Sultan Abdul Samad. He is commemorated byJalan Ang Seng in Kuala Lumpur (Lee and Chow, loc. cit.).

95 SJ 2 (1893: 18), (1894: 194, 299); SJ 3 (1894: 42), (1895: 200).96 SJ 3 (1895: 201, 368). See references to Nicholas at meetings of theMasonic Lodge and of the

Selangor Planters Association in SJ (Robson 2001: 1).97 Badan Warisan Malaysia (n.d.); Chin and Hoffmann (n.d.). Gullick (2000: Plate 46) repro-

duces a well-known photograph (c.1920) showing the integrated frontages.98 Gullick (2000: 157); ‘AR FMS 1898’. Swettenham had the new Residency (Note 52) and then

Carcosa (Note 92) built to his requirements (Barlow 1992 and 1995: 478).

for example Loke Yew’s premises for Chow Kit & Co. (general grocers)mentioned above. But there were also instances of landlords/developers building(or acquiring buildings) as an investment in the general tenancy market. YapAhLoy suffered heavy losses in the fire of 1881 because he ownedmuch of the woodand atap hovels which were burnt down.99 A rather more salubrious examplewas the enterprise of the Dato’ Panglima Kinta in laying out his land in Ipoh inbuilding lots on a rectangular street plan, so that at his death in 1903 he was‘possessed of considerable house property in the flourishing town of Ipoh’.100 In1905 Sultan Idris was ‘the principal purchaser’ when the state government soldoff shophouses in Kuala Kangsar.101 No one couldmatch the scale of Loke Yew’soperations—‘Beginning in the late 1880s he bought up lots and built shops andhouses in Kuala Lumpur and the other main towns in Selangor’, on such a scalethat by the early twentieth century he employed Robson to manage theseinterests.102

The first large-scale ‘housing estate’development was at Ipoh, which in thelast years of the nineteenth century had expanded from a small village in 1879 toa town with a population of 13,000, the commercial capital of the Kinta miningdistrict. With the encouragement of the Resident (E. W. Birch), a leading towkay,Yau Tet Shin, built a ‘new town’of 300 houses on the east bank of the Kinta River,opposite the congested old town on the other bank.103 In 1913 J. A. Russell addedit (as rented property) to his investments, payingmore than $1½million for it.104

1914 and the End of an EraThe outbreak of war in 1914 brought building construction to a halt. Bothgovernment finances and essential industries were disrupted.105 Key figuressuch as the government architect, A. B. Hubback, went off to war servicein Europe, and his post-war successors adopted new architectural styles.106During the war there was a growing scarcity of building materials. By 1917‘iron and steel work were especially hard to get and the prices almost prohibi-tive’.107When peace returned it did not bring economic stability, and there weredifferent priorities. Government building, for example, switched from largeoffices to a mass programme of staff quarters and efforts to increase hospital

J. M. GULLICK

94

99 Note 47 above.100 ‘AR Perak’ 1903, para 48; Nazrin Shah (2006: 21).101 ‘AR Perak’ 1905, para 10.102 Butcher and Dick (1993: 256); Robson (2001: 33).103 Nazrin Shah (2006: 21); Khoo and Abdur-Razzaq Lubis (2005: 193); Lee and Chow (1997:

189).104 Russell (1954), a brother of J. A. Russell.105 Gullick (2004: 208).106 Hubback had succeeded the incompetent Caulfeild as commandant of the FMSVF. He rose

to the rank of brigadier on the Western Front and continued a military career in UK afterthe war (Robson 2001: 29; Chen 1998: 99).

107 ‘AR FMS’ 1917. The passage continues in the same tone on cement, paint and even timber.

accommodation and urban water supply at a time of fluctuating publicrevenues.108 Town planning introduced new controls on private development,with zoning of different kinds of land use.109 It was a more professional organ-ized building industry working in more uniform fashion.

ReferencesBadanWarisanMalaysia (n.d.), ‘Kuala Lumpur Heritage Trails: Market Square’.Barlow, H. S. (1992), ‘The early history of the Residency: Kuala Lumpur’,

JMBRAS, 65/2: 25–34._______ (1995), Swettenham, Kuala Lumpur: Southdene Press.Beamish, J. and Ferguson, J. (1985),A History of Singapore Architecture: The Making

of a City, Singapore: Graham Brash.Birch, J. W. W. (1976), The Journal of J. W. W. Birch, First British Resident to Perak,

1874–1875, ed. P. L. Burns, Kuala Lumpur: Oxford University Press.Bird, I. (1883), The Golden Chersonese and the Way Thither, London: John

Murray.Butcher, J. G. and Dick, H. (1993), The Rise and Fall of Revenue Farming,

Basingstoke: MacMillan Press.Chen Voon Fee (ed.) (1998), Architecture, The Encyclopedia of Malaysia, vol. 8,

Kuala Lumpur: Editions Didier Millet._______ (2007), ‘Architectural Styles of the Planter’s Bungalow’, in P. and

W. Jenkins, The Planter’s Bungalow: A Journey down the Malay Peninsula,Singapore: Editions Didier Millet, pp. 15–25.

Chin, V. and Hoffmann, C. (n.d.), Kuala Lumpur: Chinatown I: A Walking Tour,Kuala Lumpur.

Chin Kon Yit, Chen Voon Fee and Gullick, J. M. (2003), Landmarks of Selangor,Kuala Lumpur: Editions Didier Millet.

Clague, P. (1993), John Russell, 1855–1930: A Tale of Early Days in the Malay States,Kuala Lumpur: J. A. Russell & Co.

Douglas, W. B. (1876–82), unpublished diary: transcript at Bodleian Library,Rhodes House, Oxford.

Edwards, N. (1990), The Singapore House and Residential Life, 1819–1939, Singapore:Oxford University Press.

Evans, I. H. N. (1911), ‘Ethnological Miscellanea: Setting up the posts of a Malayhouse’, Journal of the FMS Museum, 7/4.

Falconer, J. and Gullick, J. M. (1989), ‘The Bandar Bahru Group Photograph’,JMBRAS, 62/1: 21–34.

FMS Railways (1935), Fifty Years of the Railways in Malaya, 1885–1935, KualaLumpur.

THE BUILDERS

95

108 ‘AR Selangor’ 1923, para 31; ‘AR Selangor’ 1925, para 43; Gullick (2000: 244–6).109 Gullick (2000: 246). ‘AR FMS Town Planning’ 1923 has the first zoning (‘scheme areas’)

plan for the development of Kuala Lumpur.

Ghafar Ahmad, A. (1997), ‘Chronological biography of Arthur Charles AlfredNorman', JMBRAS, 70/1: 21–29.

Gibbs, P. (1987), Building a Malay House, Singapore: Oxford University Press.Gullick, J. M. (1955), ‘Kuala Lumpur, 1880–1895’, JMBRAS, 28/4: 1–172._______ (1987), Malay Society in the Late Nineteenth Century: The Beginnings of

Change, Singapore: Oxford University Press._______ (1992), ‘The Bangunan Sultan Abdul Samad’, JMBRAS, 65/1: 27–38._______ (1999),A Short History of Kuala Selangor, Kuala Lumpur: Southdene Press._______ (2000), A History of Kuala Lumpur, 1856–1939, MBRAS Monograph

No. 29._______ (2004), A History of Selangor 1766–1939, MBRAS Monograph No. 28._______ (ed.) (2007), Selections from the Selangor Journal, MBRAS Reprint No. 26.Hancock, T. H. H. (1986), Coleman’s Singapore, MBRAS Monograph No. 15.Harvey, J. (1999),How to Date Buildings, Wahroonga NSW, published privately in

association with Badan Warisan Malaysia.Hilton, R. N. (1956), ‘The Basic Malay House’, JMBRAS, 29/3: 134–155._______ (1992), ‘Defining the Malay House’, JMBRAS, 65/1: 39–70.Hornaday, W. T. (1993), The Experiences of a Hunter and Naturalist in the Malay

Peninsula, first published (1885) in New York by Scribner, partially reprinted(different page numbers), Kuala Lumpur: Oxford University Press.

Innes, E. (1885), The Chersonese with the Gilding Off, London: Richard Bentley,2 vols.

Kaur, Amarjit (1985), Bridge and Barrier: Transport and Communications in ColonialMalaya, 1870–1957, Singapore: Oxford University Press.

Khoo Kay Kim (ed.) (1996), Kuala Lumpur: the Formative Years, Kuala Lumpur:Berita Publishing.

Khoo Salma Nasution and Abdur-Razzaq Lubis (2005), Kinta Valley: PioneeringMalaysia’s Modern Development, Ipoh: Perak Academy.

Kuala Langat, Collector (1882–5), unpublished diary. Transcript at BodleianLibrary, Rhodes House, Oxford.

Lee Kam Hing and Chow Mun Seong (1997), Biographical Dictionary of theChinese in Malaysia, Petaling Jaya: Pelanduk Publications.

Lim, J. S. H. (1993), ‘The "Shophouse Rafflesia": An Outline of its MalaysianPedigree and its subsequent diffusion in Asia’, JMBRAS, 66/1: 47–66.

Low, H. (1955), ‘The Journal of Sir Hugh Low, Perak, 1877’, ed. E. Sadka,JMBRAS, 27/4: 1–108.

Makepeace, W., Brooke, G. E. and Braddell, R. St. J. (eds) (1921), One HundredYears of Singapore, London, John Murray, 2 vols.

Malay Mail newspaper (1896–), Kuala Lumpur.Nazrin Shah, Raja (2006), Landmarks of Perak, Kuala Lumpur, Editions Didier

Millet.Noone, R. O. (1948), ‘Notes on the Kampong, Compounds, and Houses of the

Malay Village of Banggul Ara, in the Mukim of Batu Kurau, NorthernPerak’, JMBRAS, 21/1: 144–5.

J. M. GULLICK

96

Perak Commission of Enquiry (PCE) (1876), report enclosed with SSD 14 Decem-ber 1876.

Rathborne, A. B. (1898), Camping and Tramping in the Malay Peninsula, London:Swan Sonnenschein.

Ridley, H. N. (1896), Report on ‘the Forests of Selangor’, reprinted in SelangorJournal 4:444 and Gullick (2007: 111).

Robson, J. H.M. (2001), Records and Recollections, 1889–1934, first published KualaLumpur: Kyle Palmer (1934), reprinted (different pagination) as MBRASReprint No. 21.

Russell, D. O. (1954), ‘The business romance of J. A. Russell’ etc., Malay MailSupplement, ‘50 Years of Progress, 1904–1954’, Kuala Lumpur.

Salinger, R. (1994), ‘Wood’, in P. Schoppert (ed.), The Crafts of Malaysia, Singapore:Editions Didier Millet.

Selangor Journal (1892–7) fortnightly magazine, Kuala Lumpur: Govt Press.Sheppard, M. (1986), Klang: Twenty Centuries of Eventful Existence, Petaling Jaya:

Pelanduk Publications.Singapore and Straits Directory (annual).Skeat, W. W. (1900), Malay Magic: Being an Introduction to the Folklore and

Popular Religion of the Malay Peninsula, London, MacMillan, reprinted (2005),Kuala Lumpur, MBRAS Reprint No. 24.

Straits Times newspaper, Singapore.Swettenham, F.A. (1878), Selangor audit report enclosed with SSD 6March 1879._______ (1942), Footprints in Malaya, London: Hutchinson._______ (1948), British Malaya: An Account of the Origin and Progress of British

Influence in Malaya, rev. London: Allen & Unwin, 1st edn, 1906._______ (1975), Sir Frank Swettenham’s Malayan Journals, 1874–1876, ed. P. L. Burns

and C. D. Cowan, Kuala Lumpur: Oxford University Press.Tate, D. J. M. (1996), The RGA History of the Plantation Industry in the Malay Penin-

sula, Kuala Lumpur: Oxford University Press.Van Hagersdorp (1959), report of 1785 by a Dutch engineer, printed in Malaysia

in History 5(2). See also Gullick (1999).Winstedt, R. O. (1909), ‘Malay Industries: Pt 1 Arts and Crafts’, Papers on Malay

Subjects, Kuala Lumpur: Govt Press.Wong Lin Ken (1965), The Malayan Tin Industry to 1914, Tucson: University of

Arizona Press.Wong Yee Tuan (2010), ‘More than a Tea Planter: JohnArchibald Russell and His

Businesses in Malaya, 1899–1933’, JMBRAS, 83/1: 29–51.Wright, A. and Cartwright, H. A. (eds) (1908), Twentieth Century Impressions of

British Malaya, London: Lloyds Publishing.

THE BUILDERS

97

Abbreviations

AR Annual ReportDPW Director of Public WorksJMBRAS MBRAS JournalMBRAS Malayan/Malaysian Branch of the Royal Asiatic SocietyPCE Perak Commission of Enquiry Report, CO 273/86–88PWD Public Works DepartmentSGG Selangor Government Gazette, 1890–, Kuala LumpurSJ Selangor Journal (1892–1897)SSD Despatch from Governor, Straits Settlements to Colonial OfficeSSF Selangor Secretariat Files, 1875–

J. M. GULLICK

98