202
any real degree of authority in matters affecting their own security,7 the introduction of the new scheme met with considerable opposition from some Europeans. Smith noted that 'there is much diversity of opinion as to the desirability of employing Chinese at all as Police.' The comparatively restrained language used by Smith probably understates the intensity of the opposition. In addition to the 'jealousy,' Smith hinted that the question of the watchmen's remuneration was also a problem. He reported that 'After much discussion the community of the Five Districts to the West of the Parade Ground agreed to elect a certain number of their body to act as Watchmen, whose pay would be disbursed by themselves and collected from house to house by men specially appointed for the purpose.' The monthly pay of each of the five Chief Watchmen was $20 whilst each of the forty Watchmen received $8 per month. Uniform coats were to be provided from a special fund and the accounts could be inspected at the Registrar General's office. Not only was the Registrar General charged with ensuring that the financial side of the scheme was sound, he was also responsible for the Watchmen themselves even though their wages were paid by the Chinese community.
This was not the way that the Chinese merchants had envisaged running the scheme although it was better than having European or Indian policemen interfering with their everyday business arrangements in order to combat crime. However, because of their internal squabbling and the colonial administration's greater experience in shaping such matters to its advantage, the Chinese merchants had allowed themselves to be outmanoeuvred by Government officialdom. Smith stressed that he did not expect the Watchmen 'to take a very prominent part in apprehending criminals.' That was not the aim. It was expected that the strength of the scheme lay elsewhere and, ‘according to the recognized Chinese Custom, those who pay for their support expect them to keep the vagabonds and bad characters from congregating in their districts,' an example of what, in modern criminological terminology, is referred to as Displacement Theory. The Chinese merchants and householders funding the scheme were not particularly interested in curtailing crime throughout Hong Kong but merely wanted to ensure that it did not occur in their area.
The tone of Lister's 1868 report was more direct than that of his predecessor. Lister contended that, whilst it was true that a force composed of Chinese would 'never carry out some of the views of the European Community,' this was to be expected because