CHINESE WOMEN IN JAKARTA DURING
THE COLONIAL PERIOD

Yuan Bingling

           The aim of the present paper is twofold: a) to introduce newly available and as yet unpublished source materials concerning the Chinese community in colonial Jakarta (Batavia) and b) to look at the position and the role of Chinese women within that urban society. [1]

That such a study can be envisaged today is entirely thanks to the recent availability of the “Kong Koan Archives”, a magnificent collection of a great variety of administrative documents from the Chinese Council (gongguan 公館) of Jakarta covering the period 1775-1950. Five years ago, the collection, which also comprises, for the period after 1909, a great number of Malay and Dutch documents, was brought to the Netherlands and added to the holdings of the Sinological Institute at Leiden University. The collection can be termed unique inasmuch no comparable archives are as yet known from other Chinese communities, even on the Chinese Mainland.

Since the archives arrived in Holland, they have been inventoried and a beginning has been made with their study. Parts, such as the important judicial records (Gongan bu 公案簿) that are central to this article, have been entered on computer file. The records are relatively complete for the years 1787 to 1950. All records before 1909 are in Chinese. The Chinese ledgers amount to a total of more than fifteen thousand pages, which are more than two and a half million characters. The study and the exploitation of this unique material have just started. The work is difficult, as it not only demands a sound knowledge of classical and administrative Chinese, but also familiarity with other languages, such as Hokkien, Malay and Dutch. Insight into the history and geography of Jakarta, as well as in Dutch colonial institutions is also necessary. Needless to say, at present the exploitation of this unique material, which certainly will continue to be of great importance in the future of Chinese studies, has just begun. Much of what I have to propose in the present article is of course provisional and subject to change thanks to future research.

The origins of the Chinese Council are linked to the founding of Jakarta in 1619 by Jan Pieterszoon Coen, with the purpose of making it the headquarters of the Dutch East Indies Company. Coen built the castle of Batavia, and surrounded it with a walled city. The Dutch were settled within the walls of the castle, whereas the Chinese were invited to settle freely within the city walls. Many came, all the more because the place had long been a Chinese trading post. Coen appointed a Chinese Headman (Kapitan[2]) and put him in charge of all civil affairs of the Chinese community. This was the beginning of the Chinese “self rule” [3] and therewith of the later Chinese Council. Indeed, during the following years, the Chinese community grew to the extent of becoming the most important and numerous among the ethnic groups within the city. As Blussé has pointed out, the township became, economically speaking, basically a Chinese colonial town under Dutch protection [4]. The number of Chinese officials appointed to govern the community also increased dramatically.

          After one century, the Chinese presence had grown not only within the city, but also in the suburbs and the surrounding country (“ommelanden”) where many Chinese traders had become settlers and started plantations (mostly of sugar). It is very difficult to estimate the number of Chinese living in the Jakarta region at these times but my estimate would put them well over twenty thousand, against a little more than one thousand Europeans. This created a problematic situation. After several measures to curb the influx of Chinese had not worked, the Dutch proceeded to what today we would call “ethnic cleansing”. In 1740, the entire Chinese population inside the walls of Jakarta (more than four thousand people) was exterminated, while many more who lived in surrounding countryside were also killed. The result was not only a protracted war with the Chinese in other townships on Java, but also a revolt of the Javanese aristocracy. The conflicts lasted until 1743. Much remains to be done about this “Chinese War” of 1740-1743. The available source material, such as, for instance, the Kai Ba lidai shiji, a very important Chinese history of early Jakarta written by a number of different authors, remains virtually unstudied. [5]

As a result of the hostilities, there was a severe disruption of the cultivation and distribution system. Soon the Dutch had no alternative but to encourage the Chinese to come again to Jakarta. [6] The Kapitan system was also reinstalled and the creation of a formal Council composed of the Kapitan and his Lieutenants enhanced this time the institution. They were given a formal office in the north of the city, near the harbor, which received the name of Gongtang 公堂, Public Hall, just like the seat of the country magistrate in China proper. An inscription dated 1861, which commemorates these events and the later developments of the institution, clearly says that the place was meant to look in all respects as prestigious as a yamen back home. [7] Indeed, for the Chinese, the Dutch East Indies was a country in itself and not perceived as a colony, and in consequence the Dutch governor-general was called “The King of Batavia”. 

Before we go into this however, we should have a closer look to the Jakarta Chinese in general. Too often, even in recent studies such as the very sketchy work of Remmelink on the Chinese War of 1740-1743, the Chinese immigrants are seen as the dregs of Chinese society, driven from their fatherland by war and famine, or, I quote, “the flotsam and jetsam that had washed ashore on Java.”[8] Nothing could be more remote from the truth. The Chinese that came to Jakarta from the beginning of the seventeenth century on were almost all young males from the coastal prefectures of South Fujian, with a predominance of people from Zhangzhou. In the times we are speaking of, these parts were by all standards among the more prosperous of the empire. Traditionally, emigration did not bear a particular stigma in the townships and villages of Fujian, quite on the contrary. Immigrants arrived in an orderly way, having paid, sometimes dearly, for their passage as part of a general contract that also foresaw work and shelter on arrival in Indonesia. Each ship with immigrants brought a few hundred new workers. Newcomers (xinke 新客) were received in an orderly fashion by the resident community and readily integrated in the community. The argument that they were starving peasants driven out of their homesteads by sheer necessity was however used fallaciously when, at times, the Dutch authorities tried to regulate the flux of newcomers and threatened to have them shipped back to China or disposed of elsewhere. It is safe to assume that, like in Europe in the same period, those who left their homes for a new life in the New World were, if not wealthy or upper-class people, certainly not the most poor and inapt, but young and adventurous males motivated to better themselves in a land of opportunity. The conditions of their coming to Jakarta saw to it that the township remained fairly homogeneous as a Hokkien town, although there were also Hakka or Cantonese.

But even if the Jakarta Chinese were certainly rather well educated, this does not mean that they were schooled in civil administration, let alone in the exercise of judicial governance. This raises one of the more interesting questions we can hope to clarify one day from the evidence of the Jakarta archives: on the basis of which judicial system did the Chinese fathers speak law? The official Ming Code or the Later Daqing Lüli 大清律例 were certainly known, but they must have been of little practical use, as these law books are essentially penal codes and have very little to say on civil law. The Gongtang did not have other written law books, nor did it use the Dutch law. We may therefore suppose that the jurisprudence of the Gongtang consisted in the kind of customary law that is embedded in the regulations of clans and lineages, and often recorded in Genealogies (jiapu) as well as in the rules adopted by commercial and vocational associations (hanghui). These references were, however, as far as I can tell, never explicitly mentioned. Whenever a decision had to be justified, the terms of "this is our Chinese custom" or similar expressions were used and repeated time and again.

          Nowhere, in my opinion, this discrepancy between the theoretical framework of what was supposed to be Chinese custom and law and the true situation in Jakarta was more clearly noticeable than in the position and the role of women. Let us begin by looking at who they were. Chinese women in Jakarta, in contrast to the males, were nearly never born in China. As Claudine Salmon has shown in a well-documented article, early immigration of Chinese concerned almost solely male individuals, and almost no Chinese women came to South-East Asia before the end of the nineteenth century. [9] So during most of the period for which we have data, the Chinese community was made up of men. These, if their financial situation allowed it, were apt to marry indigenous women, most of them being slaves. The Chinese chose their women preferably from Bali, and also between the Buginese and Makasarese from Celebes. The reason for this preference is often sought in the fact that these women were of a lighter skin than the Javanese. The true reason is perhaps different. These islands, especially Bali, had not been converted to Islam. Therefore the women of these places could raise pigs and prepare pork dishes, whereas that would be impossible for a Muslim woman.

         As said above, according to the Judicial Records, most early immigrants in Jakarta bought Balinese women. These were commonly called gin'a 囝仔. They were shipped by Chinese merchants from their island of origin to Jakarta and then registered as bi 婢 (female slaves) with the authorities. Prices for them varied between twenty and thirty guilders, an amount corresponding to several months of salary for a manual worker. At this stage, there was no recognition concerning these women's personal rights in any form, even when they bore children. Only under certain circumstances they might be promoted to the state of concubine (qie 妾). This entailed a relative liberation from her bondage, inasmuch she was now part of the family and thus could no longer be sold at random. Simple slave women, on the contrary, could change hands quite frequently, and in one deposition before the court (27 May 1845), a Buginese gin’a of the age of 61 stated that she had been resold seven times. Becoming a concubine also made a woman eligible for receiving part of the inheritance, yet it did not confer Chinese status. In order to cross this border, a native woman had to be adopted by a Chinese family and receive a Chinese surname. Only then she would become a niang and eligible for formal marriage.

       All these elements crop up in a lawsuit brought before the Chinese court following a complaint by a certain Cai Jieming to the Dutch authorities (Gongan bu, August 13, 1788). Cai had previously asked to Gongtang for permission to marry a former slave woman (nubi) called Laoji 嘮吉. She was born in Batavia (Jakarta), and her name had been changed (by adoption) to Chen Xianniang 陳賢娘. In spite of his several entreaties to the Kapitan Cai Dun to receive permission to marry according to the Chinese rites, this had been refused. In his complaint, Cai Jieming stressed that the above-named lady had got rid of her native status (撤去番籍) and had already become Chinese (經已作唐) through her adoption by a Chinese gentleman by the name of You Liulang (拜游六郎為契父)[10].

       In the following legal bickering, the Council argued that they had to investigate the case in order to prevent bigamy and other transgressions, and that moreover there was a Dutch regulation forbidding the marriage between Chinese and natives (不許番唐結婚). In the end however, the Dutch authorities ruled that the adoption was regular and that Laoji now had become a Chinese lady, and the Council was instructed to allow the marriage to take place. This case not only gives a clear perception of the proceedings, but also shows the fundamental opposition of the Chinese Council to interracial marriages. This prejudice is demonstrated in many other instances, even in the case of marriages between Chinese and Dutch.[11]

       If there were difficulties then for crossing the racial divide for adult women, this did not apply for children born from a Chinese father, as these were always automatically considered to be Chinese. In a case involving the liberation of a slave woman (5 May 1790), the plaintiff stated that the owner of the woman had enjoined her to find money to buy her freedom. However, when the lady in question did find a man who wanted to buy her and set her free, and this man had already given an advance of ten percent of the price to the owner, the latter recanted and refused to let her go. The court ordered the transaction to proceed. However, it stipulated that, inasmuch the slave woman in question had had a girl baby with yet another former Chinese owner, the deed of sale did not comprise the baby in question, as the child was Chinese (係唐人血脈).

Chinese women were not bought and sold. Yet a hefty price of "engagement money (pinjin 聘金) was to be paid at the moment of a betrothal. A niang commanded a marriage gift of about three hundred guilders and even widows and divorced women could command such a price. At least half of the money was for the lady herself to be kept. In the case of widows, the lady would receive all the money that was paid for her.

An exception to this rule was made for distinguished newcomers from China. Xinke who could read and write and had a decent family background in China were very much in demand as sons-in-law. As they were normally poor, they did not have to pay any pinjin and just a pair of red candles for the ancestor altar would suffice [12].

For the ceremonies of betrothal and the marriage, Chinese custom was scrupulously adhered to. As soon as they had reached the age of fertility, Chinese girls were kept indoors. They learned embroidery, and glass painting of Chinese beauties. The latter occupation seems to have been a Jakarta specialty, and many antique shops in Jakarta still sell these paintings. In the wealthier families, girls would learn to perform music and theater from music masters who came from China. In everyday life, women would wear Javanese sarong and kebaya, but on festival days they would dress up in Chinese finery and look every bit as smart as their mainland counterparts.[13] Education remained however at a minimum, as only boys went to school and, for those who could afford it, were send to China for further education. All this is well known. From the Gongan bu however, we can learn much more, especially in those cases that entail divorce. Here we see that peranakan women stood their ground against men. They could not be divorced against their will, even if they were found guilty of adultery. They could sue their husbands for unfaithfulness. In the case of divorce, they could retain the custody of their children, etc. Here I have selected a few cases among many others that bear proof to the relatively strong position they enjoyed.

1. The case of Li Jiezhen 黎捷振 versus Ou Jianiang 歐甲娘 of 22 December 1790. Li accused his wife to spend most of her time outdoors, to be rude to her stepdaughter and to have a love affair with a young Dutchman. As proof of her misconduct, Li said that his wife had made two “foreign” trousers for her lover. He asked in consequence for divorce. The court however found that the lady Ou Jianiang did not want to divorce and the case was dismissed.

2. On 25 January 1789, the court heard the case lady Gong Xiniang 龔喜娘had brought against her husband. She had brought with her some money and also two gold bracelets, and demanded divorce. Her husband, Yang Jie 楊結 stated that he had in principle agreed to the divorce, but on the condition that she remarry another Chinese. But now he found that his wife lived with a foreigner (probably a Javanese). “If I divorce now, then she will marry this foreigner. I do not want that.” Lady Gong then promised she would not marry the foreigner. The court stated that in this case, there being a disagreement between the spouses, the lady should bring her case before the Dutch court which had special competence on interracial matters.

3. In the case of Wu Genniang 吳根娘versus her husband Lin Dujin 林度謹 (20 May 1825), the lady in question sued on grounds of neglect and adultery. She stated that Lin spent his time gambling and did not work at all, and all her entreaties had remained in vain. She being an orphan was now reduced to the state of having to live with her distant relatives. She therefore asked for divorce. Lin defended himself by saying that after they married last year, business was very bad and he himself also depended on the others for his livelihood, so he had no way of giving money to his wife. He agreed to divorce. The court was very angry with Lin, accusing him to be lazy and without ambition. His defense was deemed to be absolutely worthless, and he was found guilty of disloyal and irresponsible conduct towards a lady of an honorable family. Divorce was allowed.

4. Case of Yang Yuanniang 楊遠娘 vs. Li Tianhe 李天河 (date???). Lady Yang reports to the court that her husband wants to abandon her, and take their daughter away. The court asks to see the marriage certificate, but they do not have that. The court then makes the following judgment: if Mr. Li remains with his family and comes to terms with his wife, then he may have his daughter; if not, he can go away, but the child must remain with the mother.

5. On April 1, 1825, Lin Jinniang 林進娘turned to the court in order to sue her husband for adultery. His paramour was a prostitute. He neglected his family and did not give money for her, his legal wife, and his children. The husband, named Liao Shuyuan 廖壽元, was found to have a job in Senen (結石珍). He proposed to take his wife and children to his home there. Lady Lin refused however. Liao then told the court that lady Lin had had a child with another man, something she had hidden from him. Only when this child had died prematurely, the truth came out. When lady Lin was asked whether this was true, she said: “if my husband wants to say things in this way, I will not contradict him.” The court considered that Lady Lin had already lost her chastity and both spouses were not in harmony. So there were divorced.

6. In the dispute between Yang Chu 楊楚 and Lin Zhenniang 林貞娘 (20 October 1790), the husband accuses his wife to have run off with a Javanese, taking money and clothes with her. After some time, he succeeded in finding her and brought her home. Lady Lin explained to the court that her conduct was the result of having drunk some kind of drugged tea, which made her loose her mind and allowed her to be abducted. The Kapitan accused her of ugly and unseemly behavior and had her beaten in front of the Gongtang, as an example to others. After this was done, she was asked if she wanted to return to her husband. She said she did. Then the husband was asked whether he would take her back. He said: “yes”. In consequence, the Court issued a marriage certificate to them.

7. On 15 April 1825, Lady Lin Yingniang 林應娘 sued her husband Liang Dexiang 梁德祥 for having paid insufficiently for her betrothal (pinjin). This was her second marriage (we do not know if she was a divorcee or a widow). As the condition of her agreement, she had obtained that Liang first pay her debts, which amounted to 350 guilders, and on top of that a pinjin of 150 guilders, so a total of 500. Actually, Liang paid only 100 guilders in all. Liang protested by saying he never agreed to pay 500. Moreover, he added that before their betrothal, he had learned that lady Lin was very rich and had a lot of jewelry, and that therefore he married her. The court asked for witnesses in this case, which later was not further pursued.

As we have seen, the Chinese in Jakarta were compelled by the Dutch rule that every housefather should make a legal will. This was adhered to on a large scale, yet it seems that the way the Chinese disposed of their estate was very different from the way this was done in Holland. As elsewhere in Western Europe, by the death of the father, his property normally went to his sons, with a privileged position for the eldest one, whereas the spouse only had a right of usufruct and no say in the administration of the estate. This, as has been pointed out by the Dutch scholar J.Th. Vermeulen, proved impracticable in Chinese Jakarta. Several historical examples show that widows who generally had been business partners of their husbands during the latter's lifetime became their successors when they died. This was the case not only for commercial purposes, but often also for other functions. For instance in 1648, after the death of a Chinese Kapitan called Yan Er 顏二, the Dutch governor-general and the members of the Council of Dutch Indies proposed his wife the Lady Kapitan “Maoli shi” 貓厘氏 as his successor [14]. Maoli is the Chinese transcription for Bali, so this lady had no other official identity than that of being of Balinese origin. She was duly appointed and kept the position for seven years. As Kapitan, she had her seat at the Chinese Council. “Her judgments were always very clear and fair. She certainly was an outstanding native woman!” says the contemporary record of her activities. Moreover, Lady Maoli also continued her husband's business of many years, even when her office as Kapitan was over.

We can see from many other cases that, if for a woman to become Kapitan was an exception, the fact that she would continue to run her husband's business was more of a rule. Women inherited their husband's fortune inasmuch they normally had been business partners before his death. As documented by Vermeulen on the basis of Dutch administrative records, the VOC authorities changed their own law with regard to women’s rights. Thus, in 1693, all Chinese women over the age of twenty-five enjoyed the right to administrate personally not only their own, but also their family’s property and go to the courts of justice in order to protect their interests.[15] In 1717 it was decided that all Chinese marriages as well as divorces should be duly registered with the Chinese Council in order to be legally recognized. Later, in 1756, Governor General Mossel recognized these stipulations as “Chinese law”.[16] This particular situation of Chinese women is exemplified in many cases that came before the Chinese court. Here follow some instances.

1. On 20 April 1827, a certain Mr. Huang Agui 黃阿貴 accused Lady Lin Wenniang 林文娘 of improperly withholding from him his part of a partnership. Huang had been associated in business with Lady Lin’s late husband Wang Ruiying 王瑞英. Before his death, Wang had stealthily withdrawn the sum of 2116 guilders from their partnership. After his demise, Lady Lin took over all her husband's business. Now that Huang claimed restitution of the withdrawal, Lady Lin said not to have any knowledge of it. In their arbitrage, the Court ordered both parties to produce their account books for an audit.

2. The same day, another businessman by the name of Zheng Sanfu 鄭三福accused Lady Lin Wenniang 林文娘 for an embezzlement of about 1300 guilders, which occurred in similar circumstances. Here also the court ordered an audit.

3. In a very large and multiform legal case (8 May 1826), involving the very wealthy businessman Lin Zhen 林鎮 and his partner Chen Kong 陳孔, two affairs relate to women entrepreneurs. One of the ladies involved was the proprietor of a large pawnshop while the other had a distillery. Both enterprises count among the most lucrative of Jakarta, and the sums of money the ladies did lend to Lin Zhen through the intermediary of his partner were large indeed.

4. 9 July 1824. Lady Yu Lian 余練, owner of the silk shop called Quangshenghao 泉勝號, had entrusted two years earlier a number of rolls of silk to a (male) trader for the value of 300 guilders. The latter did not pay back any money. The trader pleaded not guilty on the grounds of business being bad at the times. He was nevertheless condemned to pay up.

5. When the wealthy business tycoon Gao Gen 高根, who held rank of lieutenant in the Chinese Council and who also was the founder of the first Chinese school in Indonesia in 1775, died in 1787, his will contained the following dispositions:

– The administration of his entire estate, including the execution of his will, was entrusted to one of his wives, Chen Shenniang 陳審娘, who received 5000 guilders.

– To another wife Li Ruiniang 李瑞娘 a batik shop in the Chinese quarter of Jakarta was given.

– To yet another wife, Huang Zhiniang 黃志娘, who lived at Bandung (West Java), Chen bequeathed 25 guilders.

In conclusion, we may state that the economic independence of women was recognized by the legal system, which treated them in all financial matters as the equal of men. This raises the question in which respect they remained unequal. Did not after all the Chinese ritual institutions also apply to them? Surely the fathers of the Gongtang would like us to believe that the lijiao 禮教of China was firmly upheld in the capital of East Indies. Yet, if we look at the legal cases, which involve the position of women from the sexual point of view, another reality emerges.

           According to the Chinese imperial law books, within a same family, no accusations of children against their parents or of any junior person towards a senior could ever be received. In Jakarta, however, things were different. Many cases that came to court involved problems related to the Chinese women’s love and sex, in a positive as well as in a negative way. As a rule, their parents, with pinjin and all the rest, betrothed Chinese niang. This did not prevent the ladies to have extra-marital affairs, without too disastrous effects, as many cases demonstrate. We have seen already above the case of Gong Xiniang 鞏喜娘 who had left her family to live with a native man. Her husband accepted divorce, but would have preferred her to choose a Chinese lover. The matter was then referred to the Dutch court. Other examples of relative liberalism in sexual transgression are shown in the following cases:

1. 3 September 1824. Li Xi 李喜, a trader who has to make a living outside Jakarta complains that as soon as he leaves the city, his wife Li Xinniang 李新娘 goes to sleep every evening in a native village and only returns in the morning. She also has taken things from the family to sell them. Li says he has always well provided for her. Li Xinniang protests that she never did anything wrong, but when not only her in-laws, but also her own servant attests her loose behavior, she accepts divorce. She is not otherwise persecuted.

2. 4 August 1790. Mr. Zhang Di 張地 reports to the Gongtang that his wife Chen Ainiang 陳愛娘 does not love him, and has returned to her mother. Each time she is taken back to her husband, she leaves again immediately. All measures, even a severe reprimand with a caning by the agents of Gongtang, does not make her change her mind. When after these disciplinary measures Chen Ainiang’s mother comes to the defense of her daughter, the old lady raises hell in the court. In order to calm her down, the judges have her slightly beaten too, but all to no avail. Thereupon the judges say to Zhang that he better divorce, and the latter agrees, saying that otherwise he fears for his life! So the judges tell him to bring all the belongings of Lin Ainiang to the court. There the lady is asked to check if everything is complete, because later reclamations will not be accepted. There is no question of repaying pinjin or other forms of indemnity to the poor husband, and the case ends here.

3. Lady Liu Danniang 劉耽娘went to the court on 10 September 1824 accusing her maternal uncle to try to have sex with her against her will. According to her story, he attempted to introduce himself in her bed while she was asleep. She cried for help, which resulted in the man trying to beat her. After a thorough investigation, the man was found guilty, severely berated and then imprisoned. The girl was taken away from her uncle's family.

4. Qiu Niangna (nyonya) 邱娘娜 (4 November 1825) went to court with one of her relatives as a witness, accusing her future brother in law of raping her. She had been brought up in the He 何 family as a “little bride” and was promised to one of the younger brothers. When one day, her sister in law had quarreled with her husband and had returned to her mother, Qiu Niangna felt insecure and asked permission to go and sleep at a neighbor's house, but the brother in law did not allow it. Instead, he introduced himself at night in her bed, and under the menace of killing her in case she would make any noise, raped her. The court ordered an examination by a Dutch medical doctor. She was taken away from her future in-laws to be further brought up by her distant relatives. Later she married a Dutchman. [17]

5. A very long lawsuit of the year (final hearing on 16 January 1826) opposed a lady called Guo Sanniang 郭三娘to a Malay gentleman. Lady Guo, the wife of carpenter who had become a leper, had fallen on hard days. Her sister-in-law persuaded her to let her young daughter live with a rich local landlord, whose wife was also Chinese. Not only did the man rape the girl several times, but he also refused to let her go when her mother came to fetch her back. This case was first brought to the Dutch court. Finally the Gongtang heard the case and the girl was given back to her mother, whereas the Dutch court was entrusted with the judgment of the Malay gentleman.

6. On 6 January 1826, a lady Guo Yiniang 郭益娘, wife of Chen Guangxi 陳光喜, appeared before the court stating that she had been severely beaten by her husband. Chen explained that the night before he had had a few drinks and then wished to make love (qianquan 繾綣) to her. She refused in a disdainful way and when he insisted, she fled to the neighbors. A quarrel that degenerated into a beating ensued. During the hearing, the lady refused absolutely to return with her husband. The judges then sent for her mother who took her back with her, pending a later decision on divorce.

       In her article on “Chinese Women Writers in Indonesia and their Views of Female Emancipation”, Claudine Salmon presents a ballad written in 1897 and which portrays three young Chinese ladies from Jakarta, and notes the “extraordinary independent life” they enjoyed[18]. Although we cannot ascertain that the characters in the ballad are described in an entirely realistic way, we can suppose that their position was close enough to reality so as to be credible for the average reader. In the present article, we have seen some elements that can explain this emancipation. With money also autonomy and freedom could be won, on the condition that some state of law and order was maintained. The Dutch rule and the Chinese administration did just that, and judging from the archives, the Chinese Kapitans maintained peace and rule of law with great seriousness and zeal. The result was that at least the more well to do among the women could enjoy a freedom and independence quite unlike that of their sisters in traditional China.