[ { "id": 206308, "series_id": 26, "series_slug": "histsyn-rashkb-journal-engine", "series_title": "RASHKB Journal 皇家亞洲學會香港分會學刊", "series_use_hku_proxy": false, "document_key": "RAS-1971", "page_number": 125, "title": "RAS-1971", "content_text": "THE DISTRICT WATCH COMMITTEE\n\n119\n\npolice were commonly reputed to be corrupt, inefficient, drunken and lazy. The police force, mainly composed of European and Indian policemen with a small contingent of Chinese, was officered by European inspectors and sergeants and controlled at the top by a European Captain Superintendent of Police, often at loggerheads with the Registrar General, the 'Protector of Chinese'. The main duty of the regular police was to protect the central business district of Hong Kong, where most of the great European firms clustered, and the docks and wharves on which the prosperity of commercial Hong Kong depended. Principally, though, the regular police were there to overawe the Chinese lumpenproletariat, composed in European eyes of the sweepings of Kwangtung Province. The Chinese residential and commercial areas on the fringes of the core central district were more arbitrarily policed—and policed of course by aliens, most of whom as ex-Indian sepoys, ex-soldiers or ex-British policemen were unable to speak Cantonese.11 Chinese merchants, therefore, thought there would be advantages in maintaining a force of district watchmen Chinese to a man—selected, vetted, paid for, controlled, and if needs be, dismissed by the Chinese community.\n\nThe establishment of a body of Chinese district watchmen by the Registration Ordinance of 1866 was at first strongly opposed by some officials. In 1866 Sir Richard MacDonnell reported to the Secretary of State that the scheme was 'working admirably'12; but two years later the Chief Justice, Sir John Smale, laid on the table of the Legislative Council a memorandum inveighing against the inefficiency and corruption of the Force and suggesting that, to avoid the constant friction between the Superintendent of Police and the Registrar General, the district watchmen should be embodied in the Police Force under one head13. Soon after the Chief Justice's animadversions were made public in the Legislative Council, MacDonnell was forced to set up a commission to inquire into the working of the regular police as a result of a number of police scandals. In his memorandum setting out the reasons for holding such an inquiry, MacDonnell also asked the members of the commission to 'report as to the expediency of continuing to maintain, with Chinese co-operation and pecuniary aid, an auxiliary force of District Watchmen, and to ascertain whether the latter body has", "txt_file_path": "txt/dfo323lmgvd/RAS-1971.txt", "external_url": "https://digitalrepository.lib.hku.hk/catalog/z029vt43g", "rank": 0 }, { "id": 206326, "series_id": 26, "series_slug": "histsyn-rashkb-journal-engine", "series_title": "RASHKB Journal 皇家亞洲學會香港分會學刊", "series_use_hku_proxy": false, "document_key": "RAS-1971", "page_number": 143, "title": "RAS-1971", "content_text": "The District Watch Committee\n\n137\n\nto be the richest man in Hong Kong. When Ho Tung retired as chief compradore to Jardine, Matheson's in 1900, Ho Fook succeeded him. Ho Fook's assistant was Ho Kom Tong, another of Ho Tung's brothers. The members of the District Watch Committee were members of a small circle of businessmen, often related through ties of blood or marriage. When the Tai Yau Bank was established in 1914 with a paid-up capital of $6,000,000, the proprietors were named as Lau Chu Pak, Ho Fook, Ho Kom Tong, Lo Chung Shiu and Chan Kai Ming. Lau Chu Pak was compradore to A. S. Watson and Co., chairman of the Po On Commercial Association and chairman of the Chinese General Chamber of Commerce; Chan Kai Ming was manager of the Opium Farm; and Lo Chung Shiu, assistant compradore to Jardine, Matheson and Co., was Ho Fook's brother-in-law. All were or became members of the District Watch Committee.\n\n22 T. C. Cheng writes that Wei Yuk 'was very much concerned about law and order among the Chinese masses because in those early days riff-raff and political refugees from South China continued to come into Hong Kong. Thus it was at his suggestion that the District Watch Force was founded in 1888. Mr. Cheng appears to be mistaken about the date and is no doubt referring to the ordinance of that year, no. 13 of 1888 rather than to its proper date of origin. Wright and Cartright, Feldwick, and Professor Woo all state that the Committee was formed on Wei Yuk's suggestion. See: T. C. Cheng, 'Chinese Unofficial Members of the Legislative and Executive Councils of Hong Kong up to 1941', Journal of the Hong Kong Branch of the Royal Asiatic Society, vol. 9, 1969, pp. 17-18; Arnold Wright and H. A. Cartright, Twentieth Century Impressions of Hong Kong, Shanghai and other Treaty Ports, London, Lloyd's Greater Britain Publishing Co., 1908, p. 109; W. Feldwick, ed., Present Day Impressions of the Far East and Prominent Chinese at Home and Abroad, London Globe Encyclopedia Co., 1917, p. 576; Professor Woo Sing Lim, The Prominent Chinese in Hong Kong, Hong Kong, Five Continents Book Company, 1939, p. 4.\n\n23 Unfortunately all the records in the Secretariat for Chinese Affairs were destroyed or lost during the Japanese occupation and hence anyone trying to reconstruct the history of the District Watch must work mostly from scraps of information found in government publications, newspapers, books.\n\n24 My guess is that a large number were traditional Chinese merchants from the Five Districts operating on a relatively small scale. The Committee after 1891 represented the views of a more westernised and modernised elite with a knowledge of modern business techniques and modern financial manipulations. Dr. Ho Kai, for example, played the stock exchange with great success and speculated in many fields, particularly land development. He was, properly speaking, a financier although his occupation is often given tout court as lawyer. He had also qualified in medicine at Edinburgh but gave up the practice of medicine soon after his return to Hong Kong in 1882 because of Chinese resistance to western medicine.\n\n25 In 1903, for example, the Committee opposed the re-introduction of the night-pass system but suggested other remedial measures (see Index to Correspondence (General Register) 1894-1904, Hong Kong, Noronha and Co., 1909, p. 100). In 1909 'at the request of the District Watchmen Committee, children who are hawking without a licence are on their first offence sent to the Registrar General who cautions their guardians. This procedure seems to have proved effective in each case' wrote the Registrar General in 1909. It is worth noting that both Registrar General and Committee wanted to end the night-pass system and were opposed by the Captain Superintendent of Police, who was unsuccessful. As for hawkers, very few Chinese regarded them as a serious menace although colonial administrators", "txt_file_path": "txt/dfo323lmgvd/RAS-1971.txt", "external_url": "https://digitalrepository.lib.hku.hk/catalog/z029vt43g", "rank": 0 }, { "id": 206327, "series_id": 26, "series_slug": "histsyn-rashkb-journal-engine", "series_title": "RASHKB Journal 皇家亞洲學會香港分會學刊", "series_use_hku_proxy": false, "document_key": "RAS-1971", "page_number": 144, "title": "RAS-1971", "content_text": "138 \n\nH. J. LETHBRIDGE \n\nwith a passion for tidiness disliked them intensely. In this case, I suspect, the Registrar General bowed to the will of the Committee. \n\n26 There was a marked tendency for the committees of such associations to grow very large in size-so many affluent Chinese wanted their names recorded as committeemen, and to donate money, without of course doing any committee work. Professor Freedman supplies an explanation for this phenomenon in Singapore: 'Since office-holding occupies a strategic position in the formation of social status, it is not surprising that the structure of associations seems adapted to this function. This adaptation is clear in two features: the elaboration of offices, such that many positions are made available, and the institutional arrangements for filling the offices with the well-to-do', Maurice Freedman, Chinese Marriage and Family in Singapore, London, H.M.S.O., 1957, p. 95. \n\n27 In 1903 the proposed scheme of detectives under the control of the Committee was not approved; but permission was given at a later date, apparently during the First World War and probably because of the shortage of European policemen. \n\n28 In 1938 there were 5 Head District Watchmen, 6 Assistant Head District Watchmen, 26 detectives and 103 uniformed men. The position was approximately the same in 1941. \n\n29 In 1902 the rate paid by Chinese shops was increased slightly and in 1924 it was increased by another 1/4 per cent. \n\n30 Butters writes that the figures which appear annually regarding the cost of living in the report of the Secretary for Chinese Affairs are based on information obtained from the District Watch Force. At my request figures were furnished from the same source showing the cost of living of an ordinary labourer': H. R. Butters, Report on Labour and Labour Conditions in Hong Kong, Sessional Papers, No. 3 of 1939, p. 137. Applications from guilds and trade unions to the Secretary for Chinese Affairs for permission to hold 'sing songs' were granted conditionally on a district watchman attending the meeting to see that nothing unlawful transpired. See Butters, p. 126. The watchmen were always regarded as a source of information about the Chinese population. When the commission on chair and jinricksha coolies attempted to discover whether there was a secret union of public transport workers, the first people they contacted for information about the matter were district watchmen. See Report of the Commission on Chair and Jinricksha Coolies, Sessional Papers, No. 47 of 1901, p. 56. \n\n31 The Registrar General in his report for 1868 made this quite clear: 'the chief object of the Chinese paying these watchmen is to drive away thieves, the cardinal evil of a shop-keeping population, And it is thought that the watchmen succeed, not only in arresting actual offenders, but also in keeping away those who live by pilfering'. \n\n32 These constables were recruited mostly from Weihaiwei, a territory leased to Britain on 1 July, 1898. \n\n33 These facts are taken from the reports of the Secretary for Chinese Affairs for the respective years. \n\n34 See above: note 33. \n\n35 The Lok Sin Tong was an association established by officials and village gentry in Kowloon about 1879 to perform charitable works in the surrounding district. See James Hayes, 'Old ways of Life in Kowloon: The Cheung Sha Wan Villages', Journal of Oriental Studies, vol. viii, 1970, p. 167. The Chung Sing Charitable Society, originally known as the Chung Sing Opera Society, was founded around 1917 by a leading merchant, Tsang Foo. This charity also maintained a free school.", "txt_file_path": "txt/dfo323lmgvd/RAS-1971.txt", "external_url": "https://digitalrepository.lib.hku.hk/catalog/z029vt43g", "rank": 0 }, { "id": 214377, "series_id": 26, "series_slug": "histsyn-rashkb-journal-engine", "series_title": "RASHKB Journal 皇家亞洲學會香港分會學刊", "series_use_hku_proxy": false, "document_key": "RAS-1998", "page_number": 235, "title": "RAS-1998", "content_text": "201\n\nof affairs is not known but it is a possibility which cannot be discounted entirely. What is beyond dispute is that these widely publicized fears were used by the leaders of the Chinese community as a reason to petition the Government for permission to organise a force of Chinese watchmen who would help the public police. The scheme received the blessing of the Governor, Sir Richard MacDonnell, though it met with less than wholehearted approval from some other members of the administration, most notably the Chief Justice, Sir John Smale. The feature of the plan which appealed most to Government officials was its economy. Since the expenses of operating the scheme would be borne by the Chinese merchants, the Government would not need to spend any money yet it would, in effect, gain additional police constables.\n\n\"The Victoria Registration Ordinance 1866\" (No. 7 of 1866) provided the authorization for the formation of this body of men and came into effect on 1 January 1867. By its provisions the Governor, on the recommendations of the inhabitants of a particular District, could appoint a Chief Watchman and Watchmen who were under the control of the Registrar General and had the same powers as a constable. Thus, although both the words 'District' and 'Watchmen' appeared in the Ordinance, the combination 'District Watchmen' was not used. Two of the most informative early accounts of the District Watch Force appeared in the Registrar General's Reports for 1867 and 1868. In 1867 the Registrar General's post was held by a young Cadet Officer, Cecil C. Smith, who also acted as Colonial Secretary whilst in 1868 Alfred Lister, a Cadet with even less experience, acted as Registrar General. From the tenor of the earlier report it seems that Smith favoured the establishment of 'a body of men acting as a help to the Police Force.' The introduction of the scheme was not easy and 'Much jealousy was at first displayed as to the powers which were to be exercised in controlling the Watchmen.' Although the wording is ambiguous and the sentiments could have applied equally to some Europeans, the tone of the following sections of Smith's report suggest that this 'jealousy' prevailed within the Chinese community. This political in-fighting amongst the Chinese merchants and shopkeepers had long-lasting consequences for the future direction of the watchmen and undoubtedly led to the subordinate position of the Chinese in its operation.\n\nAs had occurred with earlier attempts to give the local population", "txt_file_path": "txt/dfo323lmgvd/RAS-1998.txt", "external_url": "https://digitalrepository.lib.hku.hk/catalog/1g05n0794", "rank": 0 }, { "id": 214379, "series_id": 26, "series_slug": "histsyn-rashkb-journal-engine", "series_title": "RASHKB Journal 皇家亞洲學會香港分會學刊", "series_use_hku_proxy": false, "document_key": "RAS-1998", "page_number": 237, "title": "RAS-1998", "content_text": "203\n\n'it is not paid by the European community. The chief object of the Chinese in paying these Watchmen is to drive away thieves, the cardinal evil of a Shop-keeping population.' The success of the Watchmen was 'not only in arresting actual offenders, but also in keeping away those who live by pilfering.'\n\nDue to an administrative oversight 'no records were kept of the doings of the Watchmen until 27th August 1867. Thereafter data was collected and in the following six months the Watchmen were involved in the prosecution of fifty-three cases some of which were serious. By the end of 1868 another ninety-eight cases had been prosecuted due to the actions of the Watchmen and these resulted in the conviction of 117 defendants. Although the number of cases dropped to forty-one in 1869, data collected for the following two years showed that there were eighty-one and seventy-nine cases in 1870 and 1871 respectively. These returns compare favourably with similar data from the following century. As an example, in 1914 there were 109 convictions when the strength of District Watchmen had risen to one hundred.\n\nThe difference of opinion which had existed in Government circles in 1866 when the Watchmen scheme was introduced continued as the Watchmen went about their business. Cecil Smith was unstinting in his praise but, since he had been responsible for introducing the scheme, he could hardly be regarded as an impartial witness. Others, however, like the Police Magistrate Mr J. Russell and the Coroner Mr F. Stewart commended the Watchmen for their actions. At the other end of the spectrum were political heavyweights such as the perennial Mr Charles May and Chief Justice Smale. May had served as Captain Superintendent of Police between 1845 and 1862 before being appointed Police Magistrate and his low opinion of Chinese constables, whom he considered to be 'utterly untrustworthy,' was well known. His opinion of the Watchmen was similar and, according to Smith in December 1871, May showed 'an antipathy to the Corps which has had a very unfortunate effect.' This unfortunate effect manifested itself in a decline in the Watchmen's activity and energy with a corresponding decrease in the number of arrests. Smith maintained that the Chief Justice, who should have known better because of his legal background, objected not so much to the individual watchmen who appeared before him in Court, as to the whole system which apparently he did not know was established by law.\"9", "txt_file_path": "txt/dfo323lmgvd/RAS-1998.txt", "external_url": "https://digitalrepository.lib.hku.hk/catalog/1g05n0794", "rank": 0 }, { "id": 214385, "series_id": 26, "series_slug": "histsyn-rashkb-journal-engine", "series_title": "RASHKB Journal 皇家亞洲學會香港分會學刊", "series_use_hku_proxy": false, "document_key": "RAS-1998", "page_number": 243, "title": "RAS-1998", "content_text": "209\n\nBook, no District Watchmen appeared under the Sanitary sub-department.\n\nWhy were the District Watchmen employed in sanitary duties for only three years? It is tempting to suggest that one reason was because the Chinese merchants were not prepared to continue paying for a scheme which should have been funded by the Government and, by 1886, the merchants finally had found sufficient courage to make their point. After all, the entire force of District Watchmen was involved with sanitary work, which left no District Watchmen available for purely security functions. The rules issued by Government were very specific about where loyalty was expected to lie since all the Watchmen ‘must understand that their sanitary duties are of equal importance with their police duties.' In case any Watchman was left in any doubt, there was a final sting in the tail. The rules further warned the Watchmen that “if the Government does not receive from them that hearty co-operation and assistance in the detection of nuisances which it has the right to expect, such of them as may be found neglectful of their duties or otherwise inefficient shall be reported to the Registrar General for dismissal.'\n\nA less likely reason is that the Watchmen themselves did not wish to continue working in what must have been an unpleasant and uncomfortable atmosphere. However, even if this were the case, it is unlikely that these objections would have carried much weight with the Hong Kong Government. Undoubtedly, the Head District Watchmen, who had been in charge of the day-to-day running of their respective 'branches' for many years, would not have taken kindly to being instructed by Inspectors of Nuisances and would have viewed this as a loss of 'face.' For all their elevated title, these 'inspectors' were simply police sergeants in different clothing. Despite Chadwick's contention that the Chinese were ‘a most docile people ... accustomed for countless generations to implicit submission to authority,' the Government officials responsible for the changeover may have anticipated trouble if there was direct contact between the ordinary Watchmen and the Inspectors of Nuisances since the rules stated that 'The Inspectors of Nuisances shall avoid, except in cases of emergency, giving any instructions to the Watchmen direct.' The chain of command was Inspector of Nuisance: Chief District Watchmen: District Watchmen. The answer may even lie in the crime figures for these years. In 1883, minor crimes increased by 41.5% over the previous year's figure and a further 43.4%", "txt_file_path": "txt/dfo323lmgvd/RAS-1998.txt", "external_url": "https://digitalrepository.lib.hku.hk/catalog/1g05n0794", "rank": 0 }, { "id": 214386, "series_id": 26, "series_slug": "histsyn-rashkb-journal-engine", "series_title": "RASHKB Journal 皇家亞洲學會香港分會學刊", "series_use_hku_proxy": false, "document_key": "RAS-1998", "page_number": 244, "title": "RAS-1998", "content_text": "210 \n\nincrease in offences of a less serious nature was reported in 1884. Yet another possible reason for the brief presence of the District Watchmen as sanitary workers may be found in Chadwick's own words since he stated that the need for proper checking was most important 'whilst the new conditions are being introduced.' \n\nIn light of the foregoing it is interesting to note that in October 1885 a short Rule appeared in the Government Gazette relating to the transfer of District Watchmen. This was a Rule, made by the Registrar General under Section 14 of Ordinance 7 of 1866, whereby 'The Registrar General shall be empowered to transfer the Watchmen of the various Districts including the Chief Watchmen, from time to time as may seem to him expedient.' It is unclear from the wording of the rule whether this transfer referred merely to the movement of District Watchmen from one location to another or whether it legitimized the transfer of the Watchmen from one kind of duty to another. If the latter, this may have been intended to refer to the transfer of the District Watchmen from security work to sanitary duties. If this was the intention it is peculiar that the timing of the publication of this Rule coincided with the end rather than the beginning of the District Watchmen's involvement in sanitary duties. \n\nPerhaps the reason for their removal from sanitary duties was not recorded and what is most important in the context of this study is that it was a successful, if short lived, attempt to transfer a group of people from the private sector to the public domain and change their working conditions in a major way. We have seen that the District Watch Force was created for a very specific reason, namely to provide proper protection for a particular ethnic group within Hong Kong society which was not being served by the public police. Since official enquiries into the efficiency of the Hong Kong Police Force had confirmed the latter's shortcomings in 1872, there can be little doubt that in the early 1880s a need still existed for the District Watch Force as a security force. Additionally, the Chinese business folks almost certainly still preferred having their own people patrolling their streets rather than members of the Police Force. Perhaps in 1883 the merchants employing the District Watchmen were neither strong enough nor motivated enough to refuse to co-operate in Chadwick's scheme. After all the District Watch Committee was not formed until nearly a decade after Chadwick's report was published and thus the power exerted by this Committee in", "txt_file_path": "txt/dfo323lmgvd/RAS-1998.txt", "external_url": "https://digitalrepository.lib.hku.hk/catalog/1g05n0794", "rank": 0 }, { "id": 214390, "series_id": 26, "series_slug": "histsyn-rashkb-journal-engine", "series_title": "RASHKB Journal 皇家亞洲學會香港分會學刊", "series_use_hku_proxy": false, "document_key": "RAS-1998", "page_number": 248, "title": "RAS-1998", "content_text": "214\n\nceeded one hundred and the same year two District Watchmen were deployed to work in the emigration sub-division of the Registrar General's Department. During 1910 and 1911 it was felt necessary to employ 124 District Watchmen of different ranks but in 1912 the number was reduced to one hundred and remained unchanged until 1924.\n\nExpansion into Kowloon\n\nSince its formation in 1866 the District Watch Force had operated only on Hong Kong island. In May 1915 this changed when the new District Watchmen Station at Yaumati was opened and six District Watchmen were 'sent over.' In 1913, following the addition of a Cadet officer to the Secretariat for Chinese Affairs, the Government decided to expand the duties of the District Watchmen to include work connected with the registration of householders under the Registration of Chinese Ordinance. Perhaps the Government felt some apprehension that those responsible for paying for the Watchmen's services might balk at the addition of these duties because the Financial Secretary, in presenting this matter to the Legislative Council, maintained that this work 'if efficiently carried out should be of great value in checking serious crime in the Colony.' It is also clear from this speech that these extra responsibilities had required the expansion of the Force into Kowloon.19 Despite the fact that Legislative Councillors were only advised about these additional duties in October 1913, it is clear from the Annual Report of the Secretary for Chinese Affairs that the District Watchmen had begun making house calls in connection with the registration campaign at the beginning of May 1913. Daily reports were made by the Chief District Watchmen to the Secretariat for Chinese Affairs and the Police were informed immediately about the large number of opium divans and sly brothels which the District Watchmen's investigations uncovered. Thus, once again, the Hong Kong Government appropriated men from this privately funded organization to carry out work which was essentially public in nature.\n\nBetween 1897 and 1918 the District Watchmen continued to patrol on police beats under the supervision of European police. The following year saw an important change in the supervision of the District Watch Force, one that would bring its members into even closer contact with the regular police. At the end of 1919 Police Sergeant Timo-", "txt_file_path": "txt/dfo323lmgvd/RAS-1998.txt", "external_url": "https://digitalrepository.lib.hku.hk/catalog/1g05n0794", "rank": 0 }, { "id": 214391, "series_id": 26, "series_slug": "histsyn-rashkb-journal-engine", "series_title": "RASHKB Journal 皇家亞洲學會香港分會學刊", "series_use_hku_proxy": false, "document_key": "RAS-1998", "page_number": 249, "title": "RAS-1998", "content_text": "215\n\nthy Murphy was seconded from the Police to take charge of the twenty-three detectives in the District Watch Force. The official report of the Secretary for Chinese Affairs for that year enthusiastically noted that 'His work at once had the effect of inspiring the men to greater energy and of fostering co-operation with the Regular detectives' and 'A marked improvement in this department may confidently be expected under the new system.' In 1919 Sergeant Murphy, a Cantonese speaker, had sixteen years experience in the Hong Kong Police. The following year Murphy was promoted to sub-Inspector but despite his promotion he remained with the District Watch Force until January 1922 by which time he had attained the rank of Inspector. Of course detectives had existed in the District Watch Force before 1918. As early as 1894 a single detective appeared in the Registrar General's Annual Report. In 1910 the annual bill for allowances to 'Chief District Watchmen and detectives' amounted to $514 but it was not until 1911 that detectives' wages were listed as a separate item amounting to $1,212.\n\nTroubled Times\n\nIn 1922 the colony reeled from the disruption caused by a massive seamen's strike which spread to involve Chinese men and women in other occupations including the Governor's own domestic servants. The Governor, Sir Reginald Stubbs, commissioned Mr A.G.M. Fletcher, CBE, to investigate the background of the strike and to determine why the intimidation tactics of the strikers had been so successful. The resulting report together with a long covering letter from the Governor were forwarded to the Secretary of State in mid-March 1922. Stubbs was highly critical of the leading members of the Chinese community including members of the District Watch Committee who, he claimed, had not been of the 'slightest use' in either 'calming the fears of the ignorant populace' or obtaining information which would have enabled the Government to deal with intimidation. It was Stubbs' opinion that the information departments of both the Police and the Secretary for Chinese Affairs should be 'drastically reorganized.'20 Fletcher had harsh words for the District Watchmen and considered them to be 'entirely useless' when it came to collecting information about the causes of intimidation since the Watchmen 'must have had the amplest evidence available.' Whilst agreeing with Fletcher in principle, Stubbs downplayed the deficiencies of the Watchmen citing their lowly status as a probable reason for their poor performance. Given the critical tone", "txt_file_path": "txt/dfo323lmgvd/RAS-1998.txt", "external_url": "https://digitalrepository.lib.hku.hk/catalog/1g05n0794", "rank": 0 } ]