137
public meetings, fomenting agitations in regard to liberty of the subject and such things as the average Chinaman will never be able to discuss with safe familiarity for several generations to come.
He admitted there might be exceptions to his sweeping indictment. “A few there are among the Chinese who are quite at home in these essentially Western matters; but very few indeed, and to their credit be it said they have discretion enough to see that their day is far off. These master-minds of regenerate China had no share in the ludicrous proceedings at the Tung Wah on Sunday." Did he specifically have in mind Dr. Ho Kai?
As for those who did "speechify" at the meeting, in the editor's opinion, they had made fools of themselves.
The paper called for stern action against the two main speakers. It took particular exception to the remark made by Ho A-mei that any legislation or Government action that is directed against the Chinese exclusively should be resisted. It suggested that “if the Government fails to make an example of a man who publicly promulgates this sweeping doctrine, then we shall consider that the Government fails in its duty. A maxim like that must be taken seriously and crushed forever." The writer sees in the words of Ho A-mei the seeds of revolt and the breakdown of British authority.
In his remarks, Ho A-mei had called for more police vigilance. It was not the light and pass regulations that were needed to prevent criminal activity, but more detection and prevention by the police. The China Mail rose to the defence of the law-enforcers and charged A-mei with "laying calumnies against the police." In fact, according to the editor, "there are mis-statements enough in his speech to brand him forever as a man not fit to be allowed to speak in public.”
And as for Mr. Ho Tung, his speech "should remove him from the roster of Justices of the Peace." The writer saw him as a dangerous rabble-rouser who should be checked before he caused greater damage to British authority. “Apart from the absurdities in which he wallowed, he gave utterance to sentiments which can
137
public meetings, fomenting agitations in regard to liberty of the subject and such things as the average Chinaman will never be able to discuss with safe familiarity for several generations to
come.
He admitted there might be exceptions to his sweeping indict- ment. “A few there are among the Chinese who are quite at home in these essentially Western matters; but very few indeed, and to their credit be it said they have discretion enough to see that their day is far off. These master-minds of regenerate China had no share in the ludicrous proceedings at the Tung Wah on Sunday." Did he specifically have in mind Dr. Ho Kai?
As for those who did "speechify" at the meeting, in the editor's opinion, they had made fools of themselves.
The paper called for stern action against the two main speakers. It took particular exception to the remark made by Ho A-mei that any legislation of Government action that is directed against the Chinese exclusively should be resisted. It suggested that “if the Government fails to make an example of a man who publicly promulgates this sweeping doctrine, then we shall consider that the Government fails in its duty. A maxim like that must be taken seriously and crushed forever." The writer sees in the words of Ho A-mei the seeds of revolt and the breakdown of British authority.
In his remarks, Ho A-mei had called for more police vigilance. It was not the light and pass regulations that were needed to pre- vent criminal activity, but more detection and prevention by the police. The China Mail rose to the defence of the law-enforcers and charged A-mei with"laying calumnies against the police." In fact, according to the editor, "there are mis-statements enough in his speech to brand him forever as a man not fit to be allowed to speak in public.”
And as for Mr. Ho Tung, his speech "should remove him from the roster of Justices of the Peace." The writer saw him as a dan- gerous rabble-rouser who should be checked before he caused greater damage to British authority. “Apart from the absurdities in which he wallowed, he gave utterance to sentiments which can
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.