Transnational Migrants and the Burmese Buddhist Temples of

Singapore and Penang (written in 2000)

Michael Walter Charney

Abstract

The Burmese Buddhist Temple (BBT) abroad is the vital intermediary religious

institution for Burmese transnational migrants in host societies. But many BBTs

are increasingly challenged by the incorporation of large numbers of non-

Burmese members into their congregations. In the Singapore and the Penang

BBTs, a transnational group of Burmese Buddhist monks and, in the Singapore

BBT, transnational Burmese migrants (as well as monks), have successfully

interacted with Singapore and Malaysian Chinese in making the BBTs work for

most involved. While differences between the Burmese and Chinese do remain,

they have successfully formed a single temple community. In this process of

community formation, however, both congregations, and the monks as well,

have had to adapt to each other by adjusting their practice of Theravada

Buddhism when interacting with others within the temple.

Keywords: Transnational Migrants; ethnically bifurcated congregations;

Buddhist temples; Singapore; Burmese

Introduction

2

Whether as temples, monasteries, or meditation centres, Buddhist institutions

have long occupied an important intermediary position between the Buddhist

immigrant and the host society in the process of immigrant assimilation.

Insufficient attention has been paid, however, to the role of intermediary

Buddhist institutions among contemporary transnational migrant groups.

Transnational migrant communities exist simultaneously across national

boundaries (Kearney 1995, p. 559), in which "immigrants forge and sustain

multi-stranded social relations that link together their societies or origin and

settlement" (Basch, Glick Schiller, & Szanton Blanc 1994, p. 7). Shifting

attention from immigrant to transnational migrant groups adds a useful

perspective on migrant adaptation, as the agenda of the transnational migrant is

often very different from that of the immigrant. In the past, an immigrant's

economic success depended upon rapid assimilation, but today the success of

some migrants "depend[s] . . . on cultivating strong social networks across

national borders" (Portes, Guarnizo, & Landolt 1999, p. 229). A transnational

migrant, then, may not seek in an intermediary religious institution a means of

integrating into the host society; indeed the transnational migrant may be

indifferent to being culturally or socially assimilated into the host society at all.

This difference complicates the place, function, and membership of intermediary

religious institutions.

This article examines the negotiation of a Buddhist temple community

between two very different groups, local Chinese Buddhists and Burmese

Buddhist transnational migrants, in the Singapore and Penang Burmese Buddhist

Temples (BBT). This article will first consider Paul David Numrich's

observation of “ethnically defined parallel congregations” in immigrant Buddhist

3

temples in the United States. I will then attempt to use “ethnically bifurcated

congregations” as a model to understand and examine the Burmese and the

Chinese congregations in the Singapore and the Penang BBTs. This examination

also involves identifying how the national policies of Singapore and Malaysia

have impacted the place, function, and community of the Singapore and the

Penang BBTs, often reordering these aspects in the state's interest. This

reordering by the state explains both the existence of the ethnically bifurcated

congregations in the Singapore BBT and the disappearance of such

congregations in the Penang BBT.

Ethnically Bifurcated Congregations

An analysis of the Singapore BBT’s congregation reveals divisions along ethnic

or cultural lines. One glance at the Singapore BBT, for example, and one will

notice that Burmese are the predominant group in the temple on some days and

Singapore Chinese on other days. Certain aspects of the temple and its functions

are clearly directed to a specifically Burmese group of worshippers and others to

a Singapore Chinese group of worshippers. It would be too hasty, however, to

suggest that the Singapore BBT’s Burmese and Chinese congregations are

precisely differentiated and insular groups. Burmese and Singapore Chinese, for

example, overlap to a limited extent in their attendance and activities in the

Singapore BBT. They also participate on the same management committees

overseeing the temple. Further, ethnic lines between the Burmese and Singapore

Chinese congregations have been confused in individual cases, especially so

since Chinese immigrants from Myanmar (Burma), who are Burmese by

4

nationality but ethnically Chinese, have merged into the Singapore Chinese

congregation. Likewise, Thai Buddhist migrants have been known to participate

in Singapore BBT functions, Thai Theravada Buddhist traditions being very

closely allied to those of the Burmese.1 Generally, however, the existence of two

separate congregations within the Singapore BBT is discernible, both in the

activities of worshippers and in the approaches taken by the Burmese Buddhist

sangha (Buddhist monks) to accommodate two very different cultural groups,

those of the Burmese and the Singapore Chinese.

The phenomenon of a congregational split along ethnic or cultural lines is

not peculiar to Singapore, although it may be so for Buddhist religious

institutions. Mohamed Yusoff Ismail (1993) examined this phenomenon in a

Buddhist temple in Kelantan, Malaysia, in which the temple community

consisted of two ethnic congregations, one Thai and the other Chinese,

practicing Buddhism in different ways. Ismail found that in the temple he

examined, that while the Chinese congregation sponsors and participates in

many temple events, they were alienated to a certain degree from "the gamut of

rituals and ceremonies associated with Theravada Buddhism" (p. 74). A different

kind of ethnic division within a single Buddhist temple community has been

noticed elsewhere, such as in the Wat Buddharangsee, a Thai temple in Sydney,

Australia, in which Australian converts "come for the meditation evenings and

Asians for the festivals" (Croucher 1989, p. 99).

Numrich (1996) has similarly observed the emergence of “ethnically

defined parallel congregations” in several immigrant Buddhist temples in the

United States. Numrich explains this situation as follows: “[i]n such temples,

under one roof and through the guidance of a shared clergy, two ethnic groups

5

pursue largely separate and substantively distinct expressions of a common

religious tradition” (Numrich 1996, p. 144). This is in contrast, for example, to

the congregational integration of individuals in North American Christian

churches. Numrich further suggests that “ethnically defined parallel

congregations” may be either a new or newly emergent phenomenon in the

contemporary American religious landscape and possibly “unique to immigrant

Buddhism” (Numrich 1996, p. 144). As in the case of the Thai temple in Sydney,

Numrich’s “other” congregation in the immigrant Buddhist temples he studied

were westerners, North American converts to Theravada Buddhism. This factor

complicates the application of Numrich’s “ethnically defined parallel

congregations” to the Singapore and Penang BBTs. As converts, for example,

North Americans (and Australians) may join Buddhist temples for reasons

entirely peculiar to the West, such as the religious tolerance and experimentation

made popular in western postwar culture, especially from the 1960s. Although

the Singapore and Penang BBT congregations do appear to be “ethnically

defined parallel congregations,” the “other” congregation in these cases consists

of Chinese who are not converts to Theravada Buddhism, but who often carry

Theravada Buddhism with them into the BBTs. As a result, Numrich’s paradigm

must be applied cautiously to the Singapore and Penang BBTs. In this article, I

will use a several terms that should be first defined here. First, I have opted to

use "ethnically bifurcated congregations" in lieu of Numrich's accurate but more

cumbersome "ethnically defined parallel congregations."

What appear to be ethnically bifurcated congregations have also emerged

in immigrant Buddhist temples in contemporary Singapore and apparently in

Penang (though in an earlier period) as well. For a variety of reasons that I will

6

discuss more fully below, the ethnic split in Buddhist congregations is much

more evident in the Singapore Burmese Buddhist Temple (BBT), officially

entitled the Sasanaramsi Burmese Buddhist Temple, than in its Penang

counterpart, at least today. The Penang BBT, officially entitled the

Dhammikirama Burmese Buddhist Temple, shares much in common with its

younger counterpart in Singapore (the Penang and the Singapore BBTs were

founded in 1803 and 1878, respectively). Like the Singapore BBT, for example,

the Penang BBT was originally built for the religious purposes of a Burmese

migrant community and, even today, the Theravada Buddhist monks whom the

temple community supports have been drawn from Burma. Further, throughout

much of its history, the Penang BBT had both Burmese and Straits Chinese in its

congregation, probably along the lines of ethnically bifurcated congregations.

Today, however, the Penang BBT’s community consists of a single Malaysian

Chinese congregation, with occasional visitors from Burma. This latter

development, however, is almost largely attributable to changes in the Malaysian

economy since the 1960s, and many of these changes had been state-directed, as

I will explain more fully below. For the moment, the contemporary absence of a

significant or sustained Burmese congregation in the Penang BBT, helps to make

certain aspects of the Singapore BBT both clearer and more significant.

Burmese Congregation

The Burmese in the Singapore BBT share a sense of belonging to a transnational

migrant community that accepts national identities (in this case, Burmese) and

stresses real and imagined interactions with the national homeland (Myanmar).

7

The Singapore BBT, for example, is very careful to stress that the monks of the

temple and monastery of Singapore come from Burma. The print literature of the

Singapore BBT also keeps the community abreast of recent religious

developments and activities in Burma. In June 1999, for example, the upcoming

December 1999 opening ceremony for the Mahasantisukha Temple in Yangon

was advertised and the Singapore temple organized a week-long pilgrimage tour

to Burma for the event (Singapore BBTN June 1999, p. 9; Singapore BBTN

December 1999, p. 3).

In addition to a sense of identity tied to Burma, however, the members of

the Burmese congregation of the Singapore BBT intimate a sense of belonging

to a diasporic Burmese Buddhist community (I emphasize both Burmese and

Buddhist here) that transcends both Burma and the Straits. One Burmese

Buddhist has proudly explained to me that BBTs were located in increasingly

far-flung places: now there were BBTs in Australia and the United States, not

just in Penang and Singapore (or Burma). The published literature of the

Singapore BBT, most importantly The Singapore Burmese Buddhist Temple

Newsletter, keeps the temple community abreast of current developments in

Burmese Buddhist monasteries and temples abroad. This includes articles

providing a detailed account and history of the Penang BBT (Singapore BBTN

1992, p. 7), the history of the struggles of the Burmese Buddhist monastery in

Sravasti, India (Singapore BBTN February 1994), the history of the monks of

the Sigara, Varanasi Burmese Buddhist monastery in India (Singapore BBTN

June 1997, pp. 4-5), and, most recently, an account of another BBT that has been

built in Patna, Bihar State, India (Singapore BBTN 1 June 1999, p. 4). Word of

mouth is also important in spreading news on developments among the BBTs in

8

other countries. One informant noted the rapidity of the spread of BBTs in the

United States, but also happily informed me that another BBT has recently

opened in Malaysia, this time in Kuala Lumpur.

The Burmese monks in the Singapore and Penang BBTs form another

facet of the Burmese Buddhist diaspora and together provide a constant

institutional reminder to the Burmese (and in a different sense to the Chinese)

that they are part of a global diaspora. The monks of both the Singapore BBT

and the Penang BBT, for example, belong to the International Burmese Buddhist

Sangha Organisation (IBBSO) established at a meeting held in Penang in 1985

by thirteen Burmese Buddhist monks from seven countries (Penang BBT 1992,

p. 73). The IBBSO is a transnational religious organization that holds together

Burmese Buddhist temples and monks across many national boundaries, not

only in Southeast Asia and North America, but also in India, Japan, and a host of

other countries. Many of these monks have lived outside of Burma for as long as

fifty years (Penang BBT 1992, p. 73). These monks have also faced many of the

same challenges as the members of their Burmese congregations. As one

informant related to me, Malaysian restrictions on immigration have made it

difficult for any Burmese, even monks, to live in Penang. Thus, even the

Burmese Buddhist monks who service the Penang BBT are only able to do so

because they possess U.S. passports. Many of the Burmese monks have had to

live abroad in the United States and elsewhere for five or more years in order to

get foreign passports and the freedom to travel.

The Singapore BBT is given a special place within this Burmese

Buddhist global diaspora. The Singapore BBT, for example, claims that it is the

“first and only Burmese Buddhist Temple built outside of Burma (Myanmar) in

9

the traditional style appropriately adapted to local conditions” and includes this

claim in its public representations. As an “authentic Burmese Buddhist temple,”

the Singapore BBT offers to Burmese transnational migrants a unique

connection with home. This authenticity conjoined with other means of raising

the Singapore BBT’s status relative to other Burmese religious centres, the

community claiming that the temple possesses the “biggest [Buddha image]

enshrined outside of Burma.” The temple’s touted adaptation to local conditions

implies a shared condition with the Burmese transnational migrants who form its

community. The image of membership in a global religious enterprise is also

constantly invoked in temple speeches, advertisements, commentaries, histories,

and other publications.

Whether a transnational community or as a part of the Burmese Buddhist

diaspora, the Singapore BBT’s Burmese congregation’s identity as a migrant

community is reflected in representational art in the temple. The mural painting

above the lintel on the inside of the third floor of the Singapore BBT, for

example, can easily be interpreted as a metaphor for the Burmese migrants who

visit the temple and for whom, given the location of the mural, the mural's

consumption is directed. This mural portrays the history of the migration of the

temple's central Buddha image from Sagyin hill north of Mandalay in Myanmar.

A range of scenes from this migration is displayed in chronological order: 1915,

workman are forming the image on Sagyin Hill north of Mandalay; 1916, the

image is pulled on a log-platform on log rollers by oxen to Mandalay; 1917, the

image is moved to Rangoon by train and then to Mergui by elephants; and

finally in 1918, a boat carries the image out of Myanmar to Singapore. A

different series of scenes then follows: in 1918, the image is set-up in a house,

10

1932 it is placed in a larger scale temple; and in 1988 it was finally moved to the

new Singapore BBT site at Tai Gin Road. The third range of scenes focuses

upon the temple itself from this point: the erection of the temple for the image in

1991; the erection of a larger standing Buddha on the third floor in 1992, and the

erection of a stupa above the pagoda in 1993.2 The story of the Burmese

Buddhist migrant and the migration experience from Myanmar to Singapore,

then, is replayed through the movement of the image, associating the Buddha

with transnational migration and the difficulties of building lives in new

societies (Charney 2000a; Charney 2000b).

The mural story, described above, contrasts with another simpler account

written into the introduction to the temple. In this account, U Kyaw Gaung, a

Burmese traditional medicine practitioner living in Myanmar, bought marble

from Sagyin Hill and it was cut into an image at Mandalay in 1918. The Buddha

image was then brought to Singapore in 1921 (Charney 2000a; Charney 2000b).

This is a more direct version of the origin of the central Buddha image of the

Singapore BBT. This second account does not dwell on the journey of the

Burmese Buddhist image (understandable also as the journey of the Burmese

Buddhist members of the temple), nor does it stress the same sense of distance

from Myanmar. Furthermore, this second account does not stress the search for a

place in Singapore for the Buddha image, as does the first account. While the

more detailed and migration-focused mural display is intended for the

consumption of the Burmese congregation, the simpler story appears to be

intended for the consumption of the Chinese congregation of the temple.

There are few representations of migration from Myanmar, however, in

the Penang BBT. At one time, the Penang BBT involved both Burmese and

11

Singapore worshippers, although it is difficult to ascertain whether or not they

formed ethnically bifurcated congregations. Today, however there is only a

single Malaysian Chinese congregation, largely due to the activities of the

nation-state of Malaysia and Malaysia- and Singapore-sparked transitions in the

economy of the Straits of Melaka. One of the most important reasons is that

Malaysia maintains fairly severe restrictions of labor immigration, applicable to

countries of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) as well as to

other labor-exporting areas. According to one informant, for example, it is

extremely difficult for Burmese to migrate to Malaysia, and so very few ever go

to Penang. There are thus no significant numbers of new Burmese immigrants to

Penang. Meanwhile, Penang's local Burmese population was steadily absorbed

throughout the twentieth century. By 1956, only twenty-five residents in Penang

still claimed to be Burmese and of these, few could even speak Burmese

(McDougall 1956, p. 44).

Other factors are involved as well. In the late nineteenth century,

Singapore generally eclipsed Penang’s place as the most important trading

entrepot in the Straits of Melaka. Even then, Penang remained important

throughout much of the twentieth century as a tertiary trading port, visited by

significant numbers of Burmese merchant mariners and traders up through the

1970s. Malaysian Prime Minister Dato Seri Dr Mahathir Mohamad’s decision in

the 1980s to revoke Penang’s free port status in favor of Langkawi -- a port in

Mahathir’s home province -- helped to reduce the presence of Burmese in

Penang. This reduction was reinforced by Singapore’s accelerated growth both

as an international free trade port and as an employer of large numbers of Asian

hard laborers. One significant portion of the Burmese portion of the Penang BBT

12

was lost. The local Burmese, who only numbered in the hundreds in the late

nineteenth century, appear to have either moved on or intermarried with the

Chinese Buddhist population. In any event, the overwhelming proportion of

worshippers at Penang's BBT are Chinese Buddhists. The Thai Buddhist temple

across the street has continued to thrive and to offer a place of worship for Thai-

and many other Buddhists.

Chinese Congregation

While the contemporary absence of a significant Burmese congregation in the

Penang BBT helps to explain the Chinese cultural orientation of the

congregation in the Penang BBT, the reasons for the strong Chinese influence in

the Singapore BBT are complex. The emergence of the nation-state in Singapore

led to legislation that attempted to reduce the autonomy of cultural and religious

groups and to bring them under the influence of state cultural, religious, and

social projects. The Singapore BBT is subject to the rules and regulations of

Singapore’s Societies Act of 1966 and its amended provisions. The Societies Act

requires the registration of a secular management committee to oversee and act

as intermediaries for any association of ten people or more, religious or

otherwise. As an association of more than ten people, the Singapore BBT has to

be registered with the government. Members of the temple’s management

committee must be Singaporean citizens or permanent residents (NG 1997, p.

27). Thus, members of the management committee are almost always ethnic

Chinese, the majority population of Singapore. The management committee

consists of a president, two vice-presidents, a secretary, a treasurer, two assistant

13

treasurers, an auditor, and a six-member executive committee, mostly

Singaporean Chinese, with a few Burmese in lower-ranking positions (Singapore

BBTN June 1997, p. 11). As a result, Singapore government regulations have

indirectly determined that the Singapore BBT is a joint Chinese-Burmese

religious enterprise under Chinese management.

Accelerated urbanization in Singapore, and concomitant extensive urban

planning, due to tremendous economic growth in the last three decades is also

indirectly responsible for increasing Chinese influence in the Singapore BBT.

Many immigrant Buddhist temples and monasteries, for example, must start off

in private residences, largely due to the initial embryonic size of the temple

community and the limited availability of funds. This was the case for the

Singapore BBT for much of its history, as the Singapore BBT was located in a

private home since 1878. Starting off in residential homes is also true today for

the suburban Chicago BBT that I visited several times in 1995 and 1996 and for

a new Kuala Lumpur BBT that I have been told has just opened in Malaysia.

Stricter enforcement of zoning regulations that accompany increasing

urbanization creates continual problems for BBTs and other Buddhist temples in

Australia (Croucher 1989, p. 104). This has also been true for the Singapore

BBT and this problem has also led to additional dependence of the temple upon

its Singapore Chinese congregation. In 1981, the national Housing Development

Board rezoned the Singapore BBT’s land for development, which required the

temple to lease new land elsewhere thirty-year limited-term basis (NG 1997, pp.

19, 21-22, 81).3 According to one informant, according to government

regulations, all moneys collected for projects such as that of the BBT must be

derived from Singapore sources. Given the limited resources and transitory

14

status of many in the Burmese congregation, these moneys had to be collected in

large part from the Chinese congregation of the BBT. Thus, like the formation of

a secular management committee, this requirement encouraged greater reliance

on the Singapore Chinese congregation in the BBT. Despite the bringing

together of Chinese and Burmese Buddhists in the Singapore BBT, the two

groups have remained essentially distinct.

The Singapore Chinese congregation is dominant in many Singapore

BBT activities, especially during the new and the full moon. The Chinese, for

example, are present in large numbers at the temple on Vesak day, “the May

full-moon celebration of the three events of the Buddha’s life -- birth,

enlightenment, and parinibbana” (Numrich 1996; Spiro 1971, p. 221). This is not

surprising. Vesak day is the most sacred of Buddhist holidays among all

Theravada Buddhists (Swearer 1995, pp. 40-4; Numrich 1996, p. 89). This is in

stark contrast to the Kathin (Kathina in Pali) ceremony. Kathin is the robe-giving

ceremony held during a one-month period in October (and sometimes into

November), when monks return from their ascetic retreat during the monsoon

season. By giving the monks robes and providing other monastic requisites,

donors gain merit (Spiro 1971, pp. 226-7; Ismail 1993, p. 102-118). In the

Singapore BBT, this festival is dominated by the Burmese congregation, many

of whom spent time in Burmese Buddhist monasteries as novices when they

were children, and the Singapore Chinese are less conspicuous.

Some peculiarly Chinese cultural activities are also presently

incorporated into temple events and celebrations. During Chinese New Year, for

example, special lanterns supplied by the Chinese congregation are lit up in the

temple for one month, two weeks before the first day of the Lunar New Year and

15

for two weeks thereafter. At 11:30 p.m., on the eve of Chinese New Year, a

blessing ceremony, including midnight chanting, is conducted at the temple.

Mandarin oranges and ang pows (red packets) are distributed to the large number

of people who have attended the service (Singapore BBTN June 1997, p. 7;

Singapore BBTN June 1999, p. 10). During my visit to the Singapore BBT on

the first day of Chinese New Year, the first and second floors of the temple were

strung with red lanterns, each bearing a Chinese surname, representing the

family that had donated the lantern. Chinese members of the temple seeking

New Year’s blessings from the Buddhist monks predominantly peopled these

two floors, but especially the first floor. The central Buddha image on the main

floor was also fronted with numerous boxes and crates of donated mandarin

oranges. On the third floor, where red lanterns and oranges were absent, I found

only Burmese coming and going, paying homage to the Buddha.

Chinese influence affects temple functioning in other ways. Although

both Burmese and Chinese teach the Dhamma and Buddhism classes, Chinese

teachers predominate. Out of five weekly classes conducted in 1997, three were

conducted by Chinese teachers, including the “Introduction to Buddhism”

course, held on Saturday afternoons. Dhamma students are trained to pass the

Dhamma examination established by the Malaysian Buddhist Examination

Syndicate, a largely Malaysian-Chinese body, and not be a Burmese Dhamma

examination board (Singapore BBTN June 1997, p. 7). Donations made at

temple functions have also been directed toward essentially Singaporean Chinese

Buddhist charities.4

Both the Burmese and the Singapore Chinese in the Singapore BBT

follow the Theravada school of the Buddha’s teachings (most Chinese Buddhists

16

per se, however, are Mahayanist). The presence of Singapore Chinese alongside

Burmese Buddhists in the temple, however, has required the Burmese Buddhist

monks to modify their practice of the Vinaya (the rules ordering a monk’s

behavior). The monks in the Singapore and the Penang BBTs are Burmese

Theravada Buddhist monks from Myanmar. Informants have suggested that

although these monks, being Burmese-speakers, make a sincere effort to explain

the teachings of Buddhism in English and some learn a little Mandarin or

Chinese dialects to interact with Singapore and Malaysian Chinese members of

the temples, there is some difficulty in their translation. Accommodations,

including keeping the teachings at a mutually intelligible level, must be made.

The Chinese and Burmese have also comprised over the “shoe question.” In the

Yunnanese, Gwangdong, and Fukien Chinese Buddhist temples I have visited in

Mandalay and Yangon, one does not have to remove one’s shoes, even within

the temple itself. By contrast, in all of the Burmese Buddhist temples and

monasteries I have visited in Burma, one has to remove one’s shoes even before

entering the outside compound of the temple or monastery, as a sign of respect

for the Buddha. In the Singapore and Penang BBTs, however, one can wear

shoes into the compound, but they must be removed at the steps of the temple

proper.

A more important difference between the two congregations regards the

temple manners of Singapore and Malaysian Chinese women in the Singapore

and Penang BBTs. In Myanmar, for example, women are not supposed to touch

the monks, hand things to them, or talk to them directly. In the Singapore and

Penang BBTs, however, many Chinese women do all these things, especially in

receiving blessings from the monks. During my visit to the Singapore BBT on

17

Chinese New Year, for example, at least one young Chinese woman was dressed

in clothing that would certainly have been considered inappropriate for visits to

BBTs in Myanmar (one concern being to avoid tempting the monks who are

under vows of celibacy). As one informant explained to me, just as the local

(Chinese) Buddhists must make adjustments for Burmese monks, Burmese

monks have to make some adjustments for local (Chinese) Buddhists if the

Singapore and Malaysian BBTs are to work for everyone.

The Chinese congregation in the Singapore BBT has made efforts to

adapt to the Burmese orientation of the monks and the Burmese congregation on

the other side of the temple community. These efforts include participating in the

more Burmese cultural aspects of Burmese Buddhism observed in the Singapore

BBT. Thingyan (Burmese New Year), for example, is held for three (sometimes

four) days in April. Although Thingyan is not a Buddhist festival per se, it is an

important Burmese cultural event that has become Buddhicized (Spiro 1971, p.

220). At the center of Thingyan is Thagyamin (Indra) who, in Burmese

Buddhism, is both the king of the nats (spirits) and the protector of the sasana

(Buddhist religion). The first two days of Thingyan are the last two days of the

previous year. During these two days Thagyamin descends to earth and makes

two lists, one for good people and the other for those who have acted badly. On

the third day of Thingyan, the first day of the New Year, Thagyamin ascends

back to Tavatimsa heaven (Spiro 1971, p. 220; Swearer 1995, pp. 36-40;

Singapore BBTN 1997, p. 10). The New Year celebrations include a water

festival, observed throughout South and Southeast Asia. During this time, the

young bathe the heads of the elderly and offer them pots of water; while

splashing water on others, cleaning away the “dirt” of the previous year (Spiro

18

1971, p. 221). Although Thingyan, including the water festival, is Burmese or

Southeast Asian and not Theravada Buddhist per se, it is becoming a part of the

activities of the whole Singapore BBT community. According to a Chinese

informant in the temple, this clearly Burmese cultural event is now attracting the

participation of the Chinese congregation to the temple.

One of the most reliable indicators of whom a temple community

includes in its real and perceived membership is at least a token inclusion of the

scripted languages of its members in temple representations and printed

literature (it should be noted that the Burmese monks read Pali in Burmese

script). The Singapore BBT, for example, utilizes a inclusive tripartite language

strategy, issuing materials in three languages -- Burmese, Chinese, and English -

- accessible to both congregations in the temple community. Most Singapore

BBT publications, for example, include items or versions of information in

Burmese, English, and Chinese. This helps readers of these languages by making

them feel included in the temple community, and not peripheral to particular

language groups. Although the library in the temple contains mainly Burmese-

(which most Chinese in the temple cannot read) and English-language books, it

does contain a most number of Chinese-language books (although these were so

few that some in the temple had forgotten that these were there). Even then, the

English language materials appear to be intended for the Singaporean Chinese

congregation, as most Singaporean Chinese are able to access English-language

materials. The Penang BBT may have shared, at one time, the Singapore BBT’s

inclusive tripartite language strategy. Today, however, the absence of a sustained

Burmese congregation in the Penang BBT has led to the absence of Burmese

versions of the English and Chinese text in the Penang BBT’s publications

19

(Penang BBT 1999a; Penang BBT 1999b; Penang BBT n.d.). A Pali chanting

guide is also made available to worshippers, utilizing Romanized Pali

accompanied by English translation (Pannya Vamsa, n.d.). The Burmese-

language and Burmese-enscripted Pali materials that are available in the Penang

BBT are meant for the use of the Burmese monks, and are not distributed to the

general Penang BBT congregation.

There are certain obvious benefits for the Burmese congregation in

sharing "their" Singapore BBT with the Singapore Chinese congregation and

these benefits should not be overlooked here. For one thing, the Chinese

congregation provides a good deal of the funds that keeps the Singapore BBT

going. It is not a cheap affair, and the costs of the original construction of the

temple, the grounds, and their continual upkeep are in addition to the costs of

maintaining a number of Theravada Buddhist monks in the attached monastery.

The members of the Singapore Chinese congregation also present potentially

useful social capital for the Burmese congregation, many of whom have few

connections with government authorities or prosperous Chinese business leaders.

At the very least, valuable aid is potentially available in matters that threaten

their shared temple. Furthermore, as I will discuss more fully below, the

Burmese congregation needs local Singapore Chinese to serve on its

management committees, as per government regulations.

One cannot ignore the usefulness for Malaysia and Singapore of the

Penang and Singapore BBTs, respectively, in the cultivation of the image of

popular ASEAN bonds by Malaysia, Singapore, and Myanmar, the three nation-

states most concerned with the BBTs now under examination. Important

Myanmar leaders and officials in recent years include public appearances at BBT

20

functions, which then become important media events, as part of their state visits

to Singapore and Malaysia. On 12 August 1996, during a state visit to Malaysia

at the invitation of Yang di-Pertuan Agong Tuanka Jaafar, Senior-General Than

Shwe, Chairman of Myanmar’s governing State Law and Order Restoration

Council (SLORC), and Secretary of SLORC, Lt. General Khin Nyunt, made a

high profile visit to the Penang BBT, presenting a Buddha image and making

other donations (Penang BBT 1996b, p. 70). Likewise, delegations of Burmese

and Singapore Chinese from the Singapore BBT (Singapore BBTN 1997, p. 12)

and Malaysian Chinese from the Penang BBT to Myanmar serve, again, as

important media events in the hype over ASEAN solidarity. One such

delegation of sixty members of the temple community led by two of the temple's

monks went to Burma in 1996 to represent the Singapore BBT at the grand

opening of a new vihara (temple) in Yangon (Singapore BBTN 1997, p. 9).

Conclusion

This site is pregnant with research potential, especially so as it represents a

contact point on the overlap of Southeast and East Asia and thus encourages

reconsidering how we think about and divide the two regions (Liu 2000). So too,

and this is where this article is chiefly concerned, this site also encourages

reconsidering how we think about intermediary Buddhist institutions and the role

they play in the relationship between host and migrant. This relationship, as I

have explained, has produced a generally workable temple community divided in

some ways along ethnic lines, but with signs of increasing acceptance and

sharing that cross these boundaries. In the Singapore and the Penang BBTs, a

21

transnational group of Burmese Buddhist monks, and in the Singapore BBT,

transnational Burmese migrants (as well as monks), have successfully interacted

with Singapore and Malaysian Chinese in making the BBTs work for most

involved. While differences between the Burmese and Chinese do exist,

ethnically bifurcated congregations do not rule out a single temple community.

Indeed, in the BBTs I examined and in the Thai temple examined by Ismail in

Kelantan, members in the split congregations still saw themselves as one temple

community (Ismail 1993, p. 74).

This case study also suggests that Chinese integration into Thai and

Burmese Theravada Buddhist temple communities is not due entirely to the

flexibility of Chinese religious beliefs. In the process of community formation in

my case study, both congregations, and the Burmese Buddhist monks as well,

have had to adapt to each other by adjusting their practice of Buddhism when

interacting with others within the temple, although the may retain stricter

standards in their personal observance of the tenets of Theravada Buddhism.

This may represent a broader phenomenon, as Ismail has also found the same

tolerance to Chinese cultural and religious (Mahayana Buddhist) beliefs and

practices in the Thai Buddhist temple in Kelantan, including the incorporation

into the temple of specifically Chinese deities such as the goddess Kuan Yin

(Ismael 1993, p. 7). The tolerance, flexibility, and adaptability of Thai and

Burmese Theravada Buddhist temples also helps to explain the emergence of

ethnically bifurcated congregations in Thai temples in Australia and North

America. This tolerance and acceptance of non-Thais and non-Burmese, who are

often less agile in their observance of the practices and rituals of Theravada

Buddhism than are Thai and Burmese migrants, may suggest that Southeast

22

Asian cultural norms, as reflected in their expression and observance of

Buddhism (ethnic Buddhism), may be one explanation for the existence of

ethnically bifurcated congregations. In Japanese immigrant Buddhist temples in

the United States, for example, it does not appear that ethnically bifurcated

congregations have been long-lived, when they have appeared at all (Numrich

1996, pp. 144-45).

But not all Burmese are happy with the adjustments required by the

sharing of the temple by two ethnically differentiated congregations. According

to one informant, for example, some Burmese have abandoned the Singapore

BBT for two reasons. First, some Burmese are unsatisfied with the faithfulness

of the temple to orthodox Theravada Burmese Buddhist practices, due less rigid

standards in an effort by the temple to incorporate the Chinese. Second, some

Burmese are unhappy with modifications in temple meditation culture, including

the incorporation of Chinese cultural events in temple observances. As a result,

part of the Burmese congregation of the Singapore BBT have ‘migrated’ to

other, though newer, Burmese Buddhist religious centres in Singapore, such as

the Vipassana Meditation Centre. During my visit to the Vipassana Meditation

Centre in 1999, I observed that while the latter incorporates both Burmese and

Chinese worshippers, its congregation focuses more on the meditative side of

Theravada Buddhism and is much more austere than the Singapore BBT temple

and grounds.

The nation-state in Singapore has successfully, but indirectly, managed

transnational linkages and migrants associated with the BBT. This indirect state

management has both reinforced the influence and strength of the state and has

influenced the place of the BBT and the interaction of its Burmese congregation

23

with the host society. In Malaysia, the (at least partly) state-sponsored changes in

the regional economy and national policy have affected the Penang BBT in

different ways. In some ways, the Burmese and Singapore Chinese

congregations in the Singapore BBT and the Malaysian Chinese congregation in

the Penang BBT have benefited from state efforts. Burmese migrants, for

example, benefit from the availability of a Burmese Buddhist Temple in

Singapore, and the size and range of temple activities is largely due to the

participation of, and funding by, Singapore Chinese. Malaysian and Singapore

Chinese benefit from state-prompted developments, as they have become valued

members of the temple community, for otherwise they would be outsiders

relative to a Burmese Buddhist community.

What directions for the future? At present, all indications are that

“ethnically defined parallel congregations will continue to characterize the

Singapore BBT. Much of this, of course, hinges on the continued economic

success of Singapore. Structural changes in the regional economy could threaten

the continued presence of the Burmese congregation in the temple. Malaysia’s

efforts to push local Malaysian ports to compete with Singapore’s entrepot

activities (Navaratnam 1999, p. 89), for example, could easily redirect

Myanmar’s share of shipping away from Singapore, depriving the temple of one

element of Burmese worshippers. A slowdown in the Singaporean economy, not

unreasonable given the recent indications of an economic slowdown in the

United States, could spark concerns among Singaporeans that foreign labor that

foreigners are competing for their jobs. Given that many Burmese worshippers

are middle-class professionals on renewable contracts, a shift in government

labor policy could remove the most stable and active members of the Burmese

24

congregation of the Singapore BBT. Should any of these scenarios be realized, it

does not seem unreasonable to expect the Singaporean temple to become very

much like its Penang counterpart.

Acknowledgments

I would like to thank S. M. A. K. Fakhri of the National University of Singapore

and Atsuko Naono of the University of Michigan for their comments, and the

Institute of Southeast Asian Studies for access to their library resources.

References

ANDERSON, BENEDICT 1983 Imagined Communities: Reflections on the

Origin and Spread of Nationalism, Revised ed. London: Verso Press

BASCH, LINDA, GLICK SCHILLER, NINA, & SZANTON BLANC,

CRISTINA 1994 Nations Unbound: Transnational Projects,

Postcolonial Predicaments, and Deterritorialized Nation-States,

Langhorne, Pennsylvania: Gordon and Breach

CHARNEY, MICHAEL WALTER 1997 'The Burmese', in Levinson & Ember

1997, pp. 115-118.

________ 1999a ‘Problematics and Paradigms in Historicizing the Overseas

Chinese in the Nineteenth- and Twentieth-century Straits and Burma’,

Journal of the South Seas Society vol. 54, pp. 93-106

________ 2000a 'Chinese and Burmese in Singapore's 'Burmese' Buddhist

Temple: Reconsidering Two Migrant Groups in the Straits and Burma',

25

paper presented at the Conference on Transnational Communities in the

Asia-Pacific Region, Singapore, August 7-8

________ 2000b ‘Surviving the Global(izing) City: Transnational Migrants and

Community Formation in and Singapore’, paper presented at the Asian

Studies Association of Australia, Melbourne, July 6

CROUCHER, PAUL 1989 Buddhism in Australia 1848-1988, Kensington,

Australia: New South Wales University Press

DHAMMIKIRAMA BURMESE BUDDHIST TEMPLE. See PENANG BBT

EADE, JOHN (ed.) 1997 Living the Global City: Globalization as a Local

Process, London: Routledge

ISMAIL, MOHAMED YUSOFF 1993 Buddhism and Ethnicity: Social

Organization of a Buddhist Temple in Kelantan, Singapore: Institute of

Southeast Asian Studies

KEARNY, MICHAEL 1995 ‘The Local and the Global: The Anthropology of

Globalization and Transnationalism’, Annual Review of Anthropology

vol. 24, pp. 547-65

KING, ANTHONY D. (ed.) 1991 Culture, Globalization and the World System:

Contemporary Conditions for the Representation of Identity, New York:

MacMillan

LEVINSON, DAVID & EMBER, MELVIN 1997 American Immigrant

Cultures: Builders of a Nation, volume 1 New York: Simon & Schuster

MacMillan

LIE, JOHN 1995 ‘From International Migration to Transnational Diaspora’,

Contemporary Sociology vol. 24, pp. 303-306

26

LIU, HONG 2000 ‘Sino-Southeast Asian Studies: Toward a New Analytical

Paradigm’, paper presented at the ‘Approaching Asia from Asia’

Workshop, Sariska, India, 20-22 February 2000

MCDOUGALL, COLIN 1956 Buddhism in Malaya, Singapore: Donald Moore

MCKEOWN, ADAM 1999 ‘Conceptualizing Chinese Diasporas, 1842 to 1949’,

Journal of Asian Studies vol. 58, no. 2, pp. 306-337

NAVARATNAM, RAMON V 1999 Healing the Wounded Tiger: How Turmoil

In Reshaping Malaysia, Selangor Darul Ehsan, Malaysia: Pelanduk

NG, KEVIN PEK KEE 1997 ‘Change and Persistence: A Case Study of the

Burmese Buddhist Temple in Singapore’, unpublished thesis. Singapore:

National University of Singapore

NUMRICH, PAUL DAVID 1996 Old Wisdom in the New World:

Americanization in Two Immigrant Theravada Buddhist Temples,

Knoxville: University of Tennessee Press

ONCU, AYSE & WEYLAND, PETRA (eds.) 1997 Space, Culture and Power:

New Identities in Globalizing Cities, London: Zed Books

ONG, AIHWA 1999 Flexible Citizenship: The Cultural Logics of

Transnationality, Durham: Duke University Press

PANNYA VAMSA, U N.d. Dhammikirama Abhidhamma Pali Chanting,

Penang: Dhammikirama Burmese Buddhist Temple

PENANG BBT [Dhammikirama Burmese Buddhist Temple] 1992 History of the

Dhammikirama Burmese Buddhist Temple Penang, Malaysia B.E. 2347-

2535 A.D. 1803-1991, Penang: Dhammikirama Burmese Buddhist

Temple

27

________ 1996a The Chronicle Pictorial of Dhammikirama Burmese Buddhist

Temple Penang, Penang: Dhammikirama Burmese Buddhist Temple

________ 1996b 1996 Triple Happiness of Dhammikirama Burmese Buddhist

Temple Penang, Penang: Dhammikirama Burmese Buddhist Temple

________ 1999a ‘Invitation to the Union Kathina Celebration 6th & 7th

November 1999’, flier, Penang: Dhammikirama Burmese Buddhist

Temple

________ 1996b The Literal Teaching of the Buddha, Penang: Dhammikirama

Burmese Buddhist Temple

________ N.d. Untitled brochure describing the outlay and major events of the

Penang BBT

PORTES, ALEJANDRO, GUARNIZO, LUIS E., & LANDOLT, PATRICIA

1999 'The Study of Transnationalism: Pitfalls and Promise of an

Emergent Research Field', Ethnic and Racial Studies vol. 22, no. 2:

March 1999

SINGAPORE BBTN 1992-2000 Burmese Buddhist Temple Newsletter,

Singapore: Burmese Buddhist Temple

SPIRO, MELFORD E. 1971 Buddhism and Society: A Great Tradition and Its

Burmese Vicissitudes, London: George Allen & Unwin

SWEARER, DONALD K. 1995 The Buddhist World of Southeast Asia, New

York: State University of New York Press

VERTOVEC, STEVEN 1997 ‘Three Meanings of 'Diaspora' Exemplified among

South Asian Religions’, Diaspora vol. 6, no. 3, pp. 277-299

28

MICHAEL WALTER CHARNEY is a Postdoctoral Fellow in the Cen

tre for Advanced Studies at the National University of Singapore.

ADDRESS: Centre for Advanced Studies, National University of Singapore, 10

Kent Ridge Crescent, Singapore 119260, Republic of Singapore.

1 During a visit to the Singapore BBT, I even found a large Thai-style Buddha image donated to

the temple by the Thai king, Rama VI on the temple’s second floor.

2 This information derived from a personal visit to the temple in June 2000.

3 This event was confirmed by Atsuko Naono for the author from the Chinese-language

chronology provided in the Singapore BBTN.

4 Ten thousand Singapore dollars were donated to charities at the Fifth Anniversary celebration

held on 29 December 1996. Aside from two thousand Singapore dollars made out to the

community chest and a similar amount donated to the Pali College (Mangala Vihara), the

remainder went to predominantly Singapore Chinese Buddhist charities. Two thousand dollars

went to the Buddhist societies of the National University of Singapore, Nanyang Technological

University, Ngee Ann Polytechnic, and Singapore Polytechnic. One thousand dollars went to the

Thye Hua Kwan Moral Society. One thousand dollars went to the Ren Ci Hospital. The

remaining two thousand went to the Society for the Aged Sick, the Shan You Counseling Centre,

and the For You Information (Singapore BBTN, June 1997, p. 7).