89
The 1884 events demonstrate how the Tung Wah Hospital made the necessary accommodations, both by its initial encouragement of the strike and by the very pragmatic manner in which it ended it.
The 1884 events also show how active the Tung Wah Hospital was. One feature of the Hospital was that all past Committee members continued to exert influence on its affairs, and were very actively involved in them. Very often, a man would be associated with the Committee for many years, either as a director, a hip-lit (hsieh-li; sub-director) or a chi-li or chi-shi (chih-li or chih-shih; manager). Li Tak Cheung, Ho Amei and Leung On, the men most active in the 1884 events, had all been directors. Though Ho Kai, who defended several of the rioters, was not himself a member of the Tung Wah Committee, he was nevertheless the son and the brother-in-law of members. The current Chinese representative on the Legislative Council, Wong Shing was one of the founding directors and Ng Choy (known later as Wu T'ing-fang), the first Chinese Legislative Councillor, was one of the founding managers. This concentration of wealth and influence, and most significantly, dynamism and dedication, consolidated the Tung Wah Hospital in its leading position.
Lethbridge, in his very perceptive article on the Tung Wah Hospital, has provided many insights into its operations and into the sociological conditions which give rise to such institutions. But sociological theories cannot explain why men did what they did at any given time, nor how these institutions changed the course of history.
The Tung Wah Hospital was not a lame yes-man to China or Canton. It had its own identity, interests and principles. Merely two years later, in 1886, it resisted the order of Canton authorities to yield funds originally raised for the relief of flood victims for some other purpose. Ironically, on this occasion, the Hong Kong Government again under the acting governorship of Marsh rallied to its support in order to beat off "the attempt of a Chinese official to exercise jurisdiction over the Directors of a Hong Kong Public Institution."
Its role in 1884 was not based upon the need to appease