[ { "id": 207674, "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-1976", "page_number": 62, "title": "RAS-1976", "content_text": "The Teochiu ethnicity in urban Hong Kong\n\n47\n\nThere are no comparable local level organizations in the urban areas,* though the government has encouraged the development of local-level urban neighborhood associations (Kaifongs), which are presumed to reflect local opinion and to be effective in influencing government decisions affecting the local area. The Kaifongs in resettlement estates with which I am familiar currently fulfill neither of these functions and are hardly considered organizations worthy of much effort to control. Teochiu have primarily been \"isolationist\" in devoting attention and effort to developing their own associations into what are clearly the most active and representative organizations in the local area. The local Kaifongs have thus not become an important focus of interethnic competition. Kaifong associations in other areas of Hong Kong are at times more active in local affairs. They appear to be particularly active when organizing local protest against new governmental policy which would adversely affect local residents. Hong Kong's newspapers periodically carry stories telling of the efforts of particular Kaifongs to mobilize support of local residents against new policy.\n\nThe primary functions of Kaifongs have been to provide social welfare services, serve as a communication channel to government, and to provide prestigious positions for ambitious local leaders (Kan, 1970:95). Kan describes the general image of Kaifongs in the following manner:\n\nthe more 'generalistic' orientation of the Kaifongs is more amenable to the government than is the 'particularistic' orientation of the clan, district, and dialect associations. For this reason, the majority of the population as well as the government itself have believed that the Kaifongs may become the most effective intermediaries between government and people. (Kan, 1970:94).\n\n*The City District Office scheme, initiated in 1968, is intended to bridge the communication gulf between the masses of people in urban areas and government. City District Officers are charged with assessing the overall impact of government policy, and with maintaining contact with all local organizations. In effect, the purpose of the scheme is to \"provide the public with a local manifestation of the Government... (The City District Officer Scheme, 1969: title page).\n\nFor brief discussions of divergent government policy in the New Territories and urban area, see Report by the Secretary for Chinese Affairs, The City District Officer Scheme, 1969; Wong, 1975; and Miners, 1975.\n\nSee Annual Departmental Reports of the District Commissioner, New Territories, for brief descriptions of the Rural Committees.", "txt_file_path": "txt/dfo323lmgvd/RAS-1976.txt", "external_url": "https://digitalrepository.lib.hku.hk/catalog/hq382988q", "rank": 0 }, { "id": 209366, "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-1982", "page_number": 23, "title": "RAS-1982", "content_text": "STRUCTURE AND FUNCTION IN AN URBAN ORGANIZATION: THE MUTUAL AID COMMITTEES\n\nJANET LEE SCOTT*\n\nThe Mutual Aid Committees (MACs), or as they are more commonly known in Hong Kong, were first established in June of 1973. They are organizations composed of residents of a building, or more rarely, a group of buildings, and have the dual aims of promoting a sense of friendship and mutual reliance among all authorized tenants and of cooperating to promote better security, a better environment and more effective management generally (City and New Territories Administration 1982:1).\n\nWhy are Mutual Aid Committees established? Investigations and interviews with government officials carried out during 1976-1978 suggested the following reasons. The first was the desire of the Hong Kong Government to improve communication with the people of Hong Kong. The MACs were originally created under directives from the Home Affairs Department, and came under the jurisdiction of the City District Offices, themselves set up under the City District Officers Scheme of 1968. As one writer described this Scheme:\n\nThe CDO Scheme was announced at the beginning of 1968, but the first CDOs were appointed in the middle of that year. The Scheme divides the urban areas into ten districts: four on Hong Kong Island and six in Kowloon. A City District Commissioner on each side of the harbor coordinates the work of the CDOs, each of whom has liaison and other duties.\n\n* Dr. Janet Lee Scott is a member of the Department of Anthropology, New Asia College, The Chinese University of Hong Kong. Her research on the Mutual Aid Committees was supported by a grant from the Institute of Social Studies of the Chinese University. Doctoral dissertation research carried out during 1976-1978 was supported by a National Science Foundation Doctoral Dissertation Research Grant, an N.D.F.L. fellowship awarded through Cornell University, and a grant from the Cornell Center for International Studies. The author wishes to express her appreciation for such generous financial support.", "txt_file_path": "txt/dfo323lmgvd/RAS-1982.txt", "external_url": "https://digitalrepository.lib.hku.hk/catalog/mk61z420p", "rank": 0 }, { "id": 209367, "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-1982", "page_number": 24, "title": "RAS-1982", "content_text": "2\n\nJANET LEE SCOTT\n\nstaff amounting to around a dozen in all. The SCA [Secretary for Chinese Affairs: this title was later changed to Secretary for Home Affairs] is put in overall responsibility for the working of the Scheme. The CDOs are specifically enjoined to a) assess the overall impact of government policies, to explain these policies as well as the difficulties and the achievements of the Government to ordinary people, b) to initiate proposals for the new policies or new procedure when the need for these becomes apparent from the feeling of the public, and c) to become aware of problems and conflicts and trends of public thinking before attitudes have been struck. In short, the new CDO Scheme is a response of Government to the public's by-now-hackneyed outcry for 'closing the gap between the Government and the people' (Wong 1972:223).\n\nAn official source from 1975 gave a similar description:\n\nThis [Home Affairs] department runs the City District Office Scheme, which was introduced in 1968 to improve communication between the government and people. There are 10 City District Offices and 12 sub-offices in the most crowded urban areas of Kowloon and Hong Kong Island. Throughout the urban areas, these offices provide a point of contact with the government where even the humblest citizen can go for help in the knowledge that he will be courteously treated, patiently heard and helpfully advised (Government Information Services 1975:211).\n\nThe Mutual Aid Committees, it was felt, would help the District Offices achieve this aim of improved communication, as they would offer their members opportunities to participate in local affairs, and to express their opinions to the Government.\n\nA second reason for establishing Mutual Aid Committees was to aid the authorities in the promotion of various social campaigns. As described in 1980:\n\nIn 1973 the Hong Kong government decided to take action against two major city problems: a rising crime rate and an accelerating deterioration of the living and working conditions in a number of residential and business units. The plan of action included the launching of two campaigns, the", "txt_file_path": "txt/dfo323lmgvd/RAS-1982.txt", "external_url": "https://digitalrepository.lib.hku.hk/catalog/mk61z420p", "rank": 0 }, { "id": 209369, "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-1982", "page_number": 26, "title": "RAS-1982", "content_text": "4\n\nJANET LEE SCOTT\n\nneighbourliness is already developing in some multi-storey blocks where mutual aid committees have been set up, and people are now getting to know their neighbours in a way which seemed impossible before (Government Information Services 1974:9).\n\nThat the Mutual Aid Committees were believed to be succeeding in these endeavours, and for that reason were being promoted by the Hong Kong government, is suggested by evaluations made of the Scheme early in its history. Apparently, public opinion towards the committees was so favourable during the first years that an early decision was made to continue the formation of the MACs.1 In 1974, it was stated that \"Mutual Aid Committees should be regarded as a permanent requirement in helping to ensure a stable society and that the legal requirement for registration, i.e. exemption from registration as societies under the Societies Ordinance provided they were approved by the Director of Home Affairs (or the Secretary for the New Territories, outside the urban area), would be continued\" (Director of Home Affairs 1974:5). Such official support was to continue. During interviews conducted in 1976 and again in 1978, liaison officers of the City District Offices of the Wong Tai Sin and Mong Kok Districts were still expressing their satisfaction with committee operation. Further confirmation of committee success, in terms of organization, can be seen in the increased number of committees formed. At the end of their first year, 1973, a total of 1,214 MACs were formed (Government Information Services 1974:9), but by the end of 1981, this figure had risen to 3,573 (Government Information Services 1982:248). At present (to the end of February, 1983) the figure has risen to 3,752.\n\nIf the Mutual Aid Committees have been considered as valuable organizations by the City District Offices, they have been equally valued by others. Since their inception, the Mutual Aid Committees have proved themselves useful settings in which to investigate such diverse topics as the adjustments of the elderly (Ikels 1983), the delivery of community health services (Grandpierre 1978), and the dimensions of women's participation in urban organizations (Scott 1980). Other scholars have chosen to study the Mutual Aid Committees because they are neighbourhood associations, and thus can be used to explore the", "txt_file_path": "txt/dfo323lmgvd/RAS-1982.txt", "external_url": "https://digitalrepository.lib.hku.hk/catalog/mk61z420p", "rank": 0 }, { "id": 209372, "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-1982", "page_number": 29, "title": "RAS-1982", "content_text": "7\n\nTions living in many public housing estate blocks. As observed in 1980:\n\nOne of the largest estates where I interviewed, Tze Wan Shan Estate, is the largest in Hong Kong, housing well over 150,000 people. One of its blocks, Block #66, houses approximately 8,400 people. But it is not the largest. Across the street, Block #61, on the outer edge of the estate, houses nearly 9,900 people (Scott 1980:33).\n\nBlocks of this size, with such enormous resident populations, would make the standard arrangement not only impractical, but ridiculous. Yet, there have been some standard committees created under such situations. For example, in 1978 Blocks #62, #64, and #65 of Tze Wan Shan Estate, with a combined population of 11,000 inhabitants, were operating with one committee. Some blocks solve the population problem by dividing into floors; for example, one committee could be formed for, say, every three floors. In 1977, the Mutual Aid Committees of Block #23 of Tung Tau Estate, Wong Tai Sin District, were arranged in this way. It is also possible, if the block has wings, for each wing to have its own committee. Even with all these alternatives, there is probably no one perfect solution to the problem of committee allocation in public housing (Scott 1980:33).\n\n11\n\n“A Mutual Aid Committee must be approved by the District Officer/Assistant District Officer under delegated authority from the Secretary for District Administration on a biennial basis for the purpose of exemption from the Societies Ordinance (Cap. 151)” (City and New Territories Administration 1982:1).10 Each Mutual Aid Committee in Lok Fu Estate follows this rule and is registered for a period of two years. However, before October of 1981, the committees were registered for only one year. The lengthening of the registration period was felt to have a beneficial effect, as it would enable the committees to complete projects planned and generally function more efficiently. At the end of this time, each committee is reviewed by the District Officer or City District Officer and if found to be functioning without serious problems, its certificate is renewed. Each committee has its own biennial cycle, however, based on the time at", "txt_file_path": "txt/dfo323lmgvd/RAS-1982.txt", "external_url": "https://digitalrepository.lib.hku.hk/catalog/mk61z420p", "rank": 0 }, { "id": 209373, "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-1982", "page_number": 30, "title": "RAS-1982", "content_text": "8\n\nJANET LEE SCOTT\n\nwhich it was established, so that one committee's renewal date is different from the renewal dates of committees in other blocks. While most MACs have their certificates automatically renewed, a few may be suspended or dissolved. The 1982 Model Rules states on page six (of Section XIV, rule 14a, i-ii) that an MAC can be dissolved “\n\nupon expiry or the withdrawal of approval by the District Officer/Assistant District Officer,\" or at a General Meeting of heads of household in which a simple majority present resolve that the MAC be dissolved, provided that this majority represents not less than 20% of the householders in the Block.\"12\n\n44\n\n■\n\nDiscussions at the District Office, however, made it clear that the deregistration procedure is more complicated. First, if there is no interest shown by the residents and if no new officeholders can be elected, the committee can be suspended. Suspension can be for an indefinite period, during which staff from the District Office survey the opinions of the residents. If a minimum of 20% of those surveyed twice vote not to have a committee, then the committee moves from suspension to dissolution, and its remaining funds and equipment are donated for charitable purposes or used for welfare or recreational purposes, according to the wishes of the residents and subject to the approval of the District Officer or Assistant District Officer (City and New Territories Administration 1982:6).\n\nWhile conducting research previously, I only learned of a handful of committees in my sample areas of Wong Tai Sin and Mong Kok Districts, mostly those formed during the early stages of the Mutual Aid Committee Scheme, that had ceased to exist. Most were disbanded, I was told, because there was absolutely no enthusiasm left for the committee, and because of that, it was doing nothing for the residents (Scott 1980:26). At present, Lok Fu Estate has two blocks without Mutual Aid Committees: Block #21 and Block #9.\n\nBlock #21 is still in the process of being converted. Prior to this conversion, it had a fully-functioning MAC, but this committee had to be dissolved when the residents were moved out. The resettling of this block is scheduled to be completed in about June 1983; at that time, staff from the District Office\n\nPage 30\n\nPage 31", "txt_file_path": "txt/dfo323lmgvd/RAS-1982.txt", "external_url": "https://digitalrepository.lib.hku.hk/catalog/mk61z420p", "rank": 0 }, { "id": 209377, "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-1982", "page_number": 34, "title": "RAS-1982", "content_text": "12\n\nJANET LEE SCOTT\n\nregulations. The Model Rules of 1982 state clearly that \"The number of floor representatives for one floor shall depend on the total number of household units on the floor but shall not normally exceed three. Each floor of the same building shall have an equal number of floor representatives\" (City and New Territories Administration 1982:2). However, the majority of committees show considerable variation in the number of floor representatives elected. While most committees do not elect more than three floor representatives per floor (most elect two or three), the majority of committees operate with unequal representation by floor. For example, in one block one floor had selected seven floor representatives, while other floors in that block had selected only two. While this is an extreme example, half of the committees vary the number of their floor representatives, electing two or three per floor, with different floors electing different numbers. Adding up the figures, eight committees had elected twenty or more representatives, while the remaining had elected nineteen or less. The smallest committee was operating with a total of eight members, which meant that some floors had not elected representatives at all.\n\nMutual Aid Committee officeholders are chosen from the committee's group of elected floor representatives, the floor representatives doing the electing themselves. Aside from this responsibility, what other duties do the floor representatives perform? Much depends on the general functioning of the committee. If it is inactive (that is, meets infrequently, organizes no activities, rarely participates in the activities sponsored by the District Office), the floor representatives will have little or nothing to do. A number of chairmen, rather embarrassed, had to admit that this was so. As their name suggests, the major responsibility of the floor representatives is to keep in touch with the residents of their floor, keeping an eye open for problems, and collecting complaints and opinions to present in the MAC meeting. The floor representatives also help transmit information to the residents from the MAC, which, in its turn, is receiving it from the District Office and other government departments. For example, before the recent District Board elections, the floor representatives of one committee went to the residents of their floors to assist them in registering as electors. Others help by distributing leaflets or", "txt_file_path": "txt/dfo323lmgvd/RAS-1982.txt", "external_url": "https://digitalrepository.lib.hku.hk/catalog/mk61z420p", "rank": 0 }, { "id": 209378, "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-1982", "page_number": 35, "title": "RAS-1982", "content_text": "13\n\nofficial information. Floor representatives also participate in their MAC's subcommittees, if there are any, and so do much of the work of organizing and carrying out activities.\n\nOfficeholders\n\nHow many officeholders are there? The basic committee structure consists of three officers: chairman, secretary, and treasurer. Section VII of the 1982 Model Rules (Composition of Committee) explains that, \"The MAC shall consist of at least three key office-bearers namely a Chairman, a Secretary and a Treasurer, and such other office-bearers as may be elected\" (City and New Territories Administration 1982:2). The three officers (and, of course, any additional officers) are required to show their identity cards and register at the District Office along with the committee itself. The registration practice, which is now standardized for all City Districts, involves giving certain personal data for recording in the District Office. The information recorded is: name, address, telephone number, identity card number, sex, date of birth, age, educational background, occupation, nationality, and C.C.C. number.15 All of the officers of all committees must register. However, the District Office does not keep records on any other members of the committee, nor does it record the structure of the committee itself.\n\nIn addition to the three officers mentioned above, most committees add extra officeholding positions to assist in the running of the committee. While government regulations do not state clearly what positions these might be, all the Mutual Aid Committees in Lok Fu Estate have vice-chairmen. Most have only one, but three committees have two vice-chairmen, one has three, and one has four. Committees have vice-chairmen because they recognize the need for someone to assist the chairman, on whom falls much of the responsibility for the affairs of the committee. Sometimes, there is too much for one person to do. Three more committees have either vice-secretaries or vice-treasurers, and two committees have both a vice-secretary and a vice-treasurer. The chairman of one of these committees explained that these extra vice-officers were the secretary and the treasurer of the previous term and were kept on to advise and assist the newly-elected secretary and treasurer. This ensured", "txt_file_path": "txt/dfo323lmgvd/RAS-1982.txt", "external_url": "https://digitalrepository.lib.hku.hk/catalog/mk61z420p", "rank": 0 }, { "id": 209379, "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-1982", "page_number": 36, "title": "RAS-1982", "content_text": "14\n\nJANET LEE SCOTT\n\nboth continuity and smooth operation, the desire for both being a common reason for electing vice-officers. One of the committees listed above as having two vice-chairmen, did so because one of these officers was soon to move to another estate and the second would be available to take over the position after he left.\n\nIn June of 1982, a decision was made by the District Offices to add auditors as appointed members of the Mutual Aid Committees. This was done on the advice of the Independent Commission Against Corruption, which believed that, although the MACs and their financial transactions were small, it was nevertheless a good idea to prevent any possible mishandling of funds.16 Any person living in the block who is not already an officer can become the auditor, but the MAC can, with the agreement of the residents, ask residents of other blocks to serve as their auditor. At the end of March, 1983, seventeen of the Mutual Aid Committees of Lok Fu Estate had appointed auditors, and one of these had also added a vice-auditor.\n\nThe largest committee in Lok Fu Estate, that of Block #15, has eight officers: one chairman, three vice-chairmen, two secretaries, one treasurer, and one vice-treasurer. The next largest, that of Block #12, operates with six officers: one chairman, two vice-chairmen, one secretary, and two treasurers. Block #19, the third largest, has also elected six officers: one chairman, two vice-chairmen, two secretaries and one treasurer. In size, these committees resemble the large scale MACs in Tze Wan Shan Estate, committees which have as many as eight to ten additional officers (Scott 1980:37). For example, the fifty-five member committee mentioned previously had fourteen officers altogether: one chairman, eight vice-chairmen, one secretary, two vice-secretaries, and one treasurer (Scott 1980:41).\n\nWhat are the duties of these officers? Of course, the chairman is the key officer, as he is the official representative of the MAC, convening the meetings, and acting on behalf of the residents when meeting with officials and representatives from the government. The vice-chairman, according to the 1982 Model Rules, is \"deputising the Chairman as and when necessary\" (City and New Territories Administration 1981:3). However, the vice-chairmen, acting in hand with the chairmen, sometimes", "txt_file_path": "txt/dfo323lmgvd/RAS-1982.txt", "external_url": "https://digitalrepository.lib.hku.hk/catalog/mk61z420p", "rank": 0 }, { "id": 209380, "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-1982", "page_number": 37, "title": "RAS-1982", "content_text": "15\n\nhave a great many other duties to do as well, and step in to work whenever necessary. The secretary, with the assistance of the vice-secretaries, if any, handles the correspondence, takes the minutes at meetings, and in general keeps the letters and correspondence received from outside, although in some committees this latter duty is performed by the chairman. Finally, the treasurer prepares the income and expenditure statements (in cooperation with the chairman and the auditor), issues the cheques (also bearing the signature of the chairman and/or secretary), checks the validity of payment vouchers, and supervises the collection of voluntary contributions and monthly fees (City and New Territories Administration 1982:4).\n\nThese distinctions look neat on paper and the division of labour seems clear, but the actual situation is a good deal less distinct. The lack of enthusiasm on the part of committee members often means that the officers of some committees carry out all the work themselves, and so take on additional duties beyond those formally listed for their offices. In addition, the distinctions between responsibilities often become blurred because officers must help each other perform their duties, especially if one is ill or away. This is especially true for the chairman, who in some committees becomes the only working office-holder. All the chairmen of Lok Fu Estate Mutual Aid Committees stressed the cooperation between the officers and the fact that they all could do each other's jobs when and if that became necessary.17\n\nHow long do officers serve? The Model Rules of August, 1982, stated clearly that, \"The tenure of an office-bearer shall be two years\" (City and New Territories Administration 1982:3). Before these rules were enacted, however, the officers of Mutual Aid Committees served terms of one year. The District Offices had many reasons for extending the term of office, but the most important was that the new officers needed more time to become acquainted with the block, its problems, and the duties of an officer. This was especially true if they were new to the block. In addition, the one-year term of office did not allow sufficient time for the officers to complete projects. The reason for this was that the last two months of a term were taken to prepare for the next election. Therefore, officers were serving, in effect, ten-month terms and it was felt that a longer term of office was", "txt_file_path": "txt/dfo323lmgvd/RAS-1982.txt", "external_url": "https://digitalrepository.lib.hku.hk/catalog/mk61z420p", "rank": 0 }, { "id": 209391, "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-1982", "page_number": 48, "title": "RAS-1982", "content_text": "26\n\nJANET LEE SCOTT\n\nNOTES\n\nIt might be mentioned that the adult population of Hong Kong was, at the time of Mutual Aid Committee formation, already well acquainted with the idea and work of urban organizations. While the Mutual Aid Committees had (and still retain) their own unique design, their structure (and their functions) were not unfamiliar and they were not viewed as mysterious committees having no resemblances to other, more traditional, Chinese organizations.\n\n* The other five subdivisions are: Kam Kwok Mansion, Luen Hop Building, Mei Tung Estate, Pui Man Tsuen Cottage Area, and Pok Oi Village (Wong Tai Sin District Report 1982:271).\n\n* The exact total, provided by the office of the Housing Manager of Lok Fu Estate, was 21,221 at the end of February, 1983.\n\n• At the end of 1982, the exact figure was 523,927.\n\n* The Mark I blocks include Blocks #1-5, #9, #10, and #12, and the Mark II group is made up of Blocks #13-20 and Blocks #22 and #23. The remaining blocks (#6-8, #11, and #21), already rebuilt, are now referred to as Converted Buildings (Wong Tai Sin District Report 1982:272).\n\n• This information was provided by the office of the Housing Manager of Lok Fu Estate.\n\n* At the end of February, 1983, there were 26 Mutual Aid Committees in the Lok Fu Area and 286 Mutual Aid Committees for the entire Wong Tai Sin District.\n\n* The selection of male members is because all but one of the chairmen of the Lok Fu Estate Mutual Aid Committees interviewed were male. In addition, the opinions of female members towards participation were investigated during the research period of 1976-1978.\n\n* Block #23 of Tung Tau Estate is still divided into floors for the purpose of MAC formation. In early 1983, it had five MACs, one for each three floors.\n\n10 In 1982 the old titles of City District Commissioner and City District Officer were changed to District Officer and Assistant District Officer respectively. At the same time the old Home Affairs Department and New Territories Administration were amalgamated into a new department known as the City and New Territories Administration.\n\n11 The official certificates of registration are framed and prominently displayed in the committee's office, or if the committee lacks an office, are kept by an officer, most often the chairman.\n\n19\n\nHowever, given the apathy of many residents and the low attendance at many MAC meetings, one might wonder if any committee has been dissolved by popular action, the second alternative.\n\n10 This is the schedule as described by the Wong Tai Sin District Office, Tung Tau Sub-office. The office of the Housing Manager, Lok Fu Estate, explained that the conversion has already been completed and that 114 families (the figure as of March, 1983) had already moved in.\n\n\"These figures have been provided by the office of the Housing Manager of Lok Fu Estate, and are accurate as to the end of March, 1983.\n\n16 The C.C.C. number is a code number found on the Hong Kong Identification Card and is written under the Chinese characters of the individual's name.\n\n10 According to the Tung Tau Sub-office of the Wong Tai Sin District Office, there are no instances of the mishandling of MAC funds known in", "txt_file_path": "txt/dfo323lmgvd/RAS-1982.txt", "external_url": "https://digitalrepository.lib.hku.hk/catalog/mk61z420p", "rank": 0 }, { "id": 209392, "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-1982", "page_number": 49, "title": "RAS-1982", "content_text": "27\n\nLok Fu Estate. I did, however, hear of such misuse during my earlier research in other districts.\n\n17 It might be mentioned here that a number of MAC office-holders, most often the chairmen, are asked to participate on other community organizations, thereby representing the MAC and forming a link between it and the organization. The nature of such links varies from committee to committee, but membership on the Area Committee is common. For example, nearly all the chairmen of Lok Fu Estate MACS participate in the Lok Fu Area Committee. Participation on such outside organizations increases the duties of the office-holders, as they must carry back to the MAC information and announcements for dissemination.\n\nIn a few committees, these items were purchased by the officers (usually the chairman) and donated to the committee. Other committees have applied to the Sir David Trench Fund. This fund, made up of a sports grant from the Council for Recreation and Sports, can be used to pay for sports equipment such as table tennis tables. Applications are invited once a year, usually in September or October. At that time, the District Office sends the temporary community organizer to each MAC, to ask the chairman if any equipment is desired. If so, the forms are completed and forwarded to the City and New Territories Administration by the District Office. The forms are tabulated and the committees are then informed of what they can buy. The committees then buy the approved items and are reimbursed.\n\nThe Mutual Aid Committees are not unusual in their practice of inviting honorary members. Honorary members seem to be a part of many Chinese organizations, both traditional and modern.\n\nThe position of honorary member is not based on sex; both men and women can be asked to be honorary members, although male honorary members are more numerous, reflecting the generally greater participation of men in the Mutual Aid Committees.\n\nDespite the popularity of inviting honorary members, the District Office does not encourage this practice, as it views the officers and the floor representatives as the functioning members. In addition, there is potential for committee conflicts if members cannot agree on who to invite as honorary members, and this should be avoided.\n\nThe terms \"honorary\" or \"ordinary\" refer to the distinctions made by some committees. Actually, there is very little substantive difference between president and honorary president or consultant and honorary consultant. In a few committees, it seems that the titles of honorary president or honorary consultant confer a bit more prestige, but this is by no means certain.\n\nEach registered Mutual Aid Committee may request reimbursement of its essential expenditure up to a total of $2,000 per year, computed quarterly (that is, $500 every three months). This money is provided for the MACs from a special fund from the City and New Territories Administration and may be used to pay the costs of the initial setting up of the MAC office; to purchase supplies such as blackboards and notice boards, first-aid kits, and loud speakers; and to pay the monthly bills (such as rates or the cost of electricity) for the office. Sports equipment cannot be bought with this money. Newly-established committees that are setting up their offices can ask for a one quarter's advance, so that they can use up to $1,000 in the first quarter if necessary. However, if the $2,000 yearly allotment is insufficient for the committee's needs, or if special expenditure is planned, the additional funds must be collected from the residents, or donated by the honorary members.", "txt_file_path": "txt/dfo323lmgvd/RAS-1982.txt", "external_url": "https://digitalrepository.lib.hku.hk/catalog/mk61z420p", "rank": 0 }, { "id": 213336, "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-1994", "page_number": 158, "title": "RAS-1994", "content_text": "140\n\nbeing much lower. One reason for this may be connected with our public image. In the past, our leadership has been closely tied to the Hong Kong \"establishment\", and in tone and membership the Society itself was outwardly and distinctively British. We were probably more interested in learning and passing on information about China to other expatriates than in encouraging local Chinese membership. We could be snobbish and certainly inward-looking, and with very little difficulty could easily degenerate into a cosy little club of people who all knew each other and were mutually comfortable in the association of like with like.\n\nBy degrees, as Hong Kong changed, and as the knowledge of English widened to include a very large school population being educated up to secondary level and above, the Council had become more concerned with encouraging Chinese membership, especially as the Shanghai Chinese element mentioned above had diminished with the passage of time. We had thought of going bilingual, as one or two other of the local cultural societies had done from time to time. We also wondered whether we should change the Society's name by dropping the \"Royal\" prefix; though this has never been a bar to the continued existence, and undoubted success, of the RAS Branches elsewhere in Asia.30 These and other topics were discussed at length during a well-attended Symposium on the present and future state of the Society held in 1987, carefully prepared and largely motivated by the coming reversion of Hong Kong to Chinese sovereignty in 1997.11\n\nFollowing the Symposium, there was a gratifying and considerable increase in membership, perhaps due to the re-energizing of the Society that took place then, and the number and quality of its programmes. However, to this day, there has been no great interest among the English-speaking Chinese public in becoming members. The fault may of course lie in ourselves, through being too British. Yet we have usually prided ourselves on being friendly and outgoing, especially in the last decade; and our venues have been popular and easily accessible ones, like the Urban Council's lecture rooms in the High Block of the City Hall in the Central business district and the lecture room at the Hong Kong Museum of History in Kowloon Park. Partly offsetting this discouraging trend, it should be noted that the Council and its working sub-committees have always included keen Chinese members who contribute much to the Society and its work.\n\nT", "txt_file_path": "txt/dfo323lmgvd/RAS-1994.txt", "external_url": "https://digitalrepository.lib.hku.hk/catalog/zk522640g", "rank": 0 }, { "id": 213982, "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-1997", "page_number": 51, "title": "RAS-1997", "content_text": "the Social Welfare Department), co-ordinated by regional generalist officers comparable with NT DOs, leading to advisory Regional Councils which might eventually become the main report's Local Authorities. They pointed up more outspokenly than the emollient main report the shortcomings of an out-of-touch government administering a non-English-speaking population that was only too open to misunderstandings and misconceptions (such as that taxes levied were drained off to the UK Treasury.) Interim steps should concentrate strongly on building up public confidence in the unaccustomed principles and practice of popular elected representation (the ‘political education' mentioned above.) The provisional system of regional advisory councils, coupled with departmental decentralisation and administrative co-ordination, should then lead to full local authorities in about six years. Meanwhile Tsuen Wan was indeed a unique opportunity for immediate action (the new towns to come of Tuen Mun, Sha Tin, Tai Po et al had yet to be envisaged.) These three semi-dissenters did not co-ordinate their Note with the other.\n\nDickinson has been described by one of his working party as “the least understood and worst treated member of the Cadet Service\" (the original title of Hong Kong's Administrative Branch of the HMOCS, which survived in common parlance long after the absorption into the Colonial Service of the pre-war Eastern Cadetships.) He chose to retire early for personal reasons. It is ironic that in the aftermath of the Cultural Revolution overspill, when special duties officers in the defence branch of the secretariat, the SCA and the Information Services Department became so active in devising new ways to win hearts and minds, to keep in touch with the people and to encourage the use of Chinese language, so much of what had been adumbrated in the Working Party Report re-appeared; but because the new ideas now came from well-established senior sources, they became respectable and it was to be long before they offered electoral participation in executive decisions. The SCA became the Secretariat for Home Affairs; City District Officers were created in ten urban districts, and found much to do that had not been done before; City District Committees were established in 1972; a Tsuen Wan District Advisory Board was at last set up in 1977, followed by others; in 1980 a new pattern for district administration was at last suggested, with direct elections to District Boards. But in all these and still later developments that affect present history, there was no official backward recognition that the ground", "txt_file_path": "txt/dfo323lmgvd/RAS-1997.txt", "external_url": "https://digitalrepository.lib.hku.hk/catalog/wp98g7579", "rank": 0 } ]