[
    {
        "id": 206251,
        "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": 68,
        "title": "RAS-1971",
        "content_text": "CHINESE VOLUNTARY ASSOCIATIONS IN SOUTHEAST ASIAN CITIES AND THE KAIFONGS IN HONG KONG\n\nALINE K. WONG*\n\nVOLUNTARY ASSOCIATIONS IN OVERSEAS CHINESE COMMUNITIES\n\nThere are many kinds of voluntary organizations among the overseas Chinese in Southeast Asia, such as chambers of commerce, clan associations, district and dialect associations, trade unions, religious societies, secret societies, political clubs and recreational clubs. However, in terms of contribution to the public life of the Chinese communities, three types of organizations, viz., the chambers of commerce, the district and dialect associations are more important than the rest. District and dialect groups are always closely connected; it is difficult to speak of one apart from the other. And in some cases, the chambers of commerce are in fact federations of local district associations.\n\nWell-known literature on the Chinese voluntary associations in this part of the world includes such works by William Skinner1 and Richard Coughlin on Thailand, Maurice Freedman3 on Singapore, Victor Purcell on Malaya, Ju-k’ang T’ien5 on Sarawak, Donald Willmott on Semarang and Lea Williams on Indonesia. Examining this wealth of literature, one finds that the chambers of commerce, the district and dialect associations serve three main kinds of functions; namely, economic, social and political. While the chambers of commerce are manifestly merchants’\n\n* Mrs. Wong is head of the Department of Sociology at United College, Chinese University of Hong Kong. This paper was contributed to a conference on \"The City as a Centre of Change in Asia\" organised by the Centre of Asian Studies, University of Hong Kong in June, 1969.\n\n1 Leadership and Power in the Chinese Community of Thailand, Ithaca, 1958.\n\n2 Double Identity. The Chinese in Modern Thailand, Hong Kong, 1960.\n\n3 Chinese Family and Marriage in Singapore, London, 1957.\n\n4 The Chinese in Malaya, London, 1948; The Chinese in Southeast Asia, London, 1965.\n\n5 The Chinese of Sarawak, London, 1953.\n\n6 Chinese of Semarang, Ithaca, 1960.\n\n7 Overseas Chinese Nationalism, Glencoe, 1960; The Future of the Overseas Chinese in Southeast Asia, 1966.",
        "txt_file_path": "txt/dfo323lmgvd/RAS-1971.txt",
        "external_url": "https://digitalrepository.lib.hku.hk/catalog/z029vt43g",
        "rank": 0
    },
    {
        "id": 206938,
        "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-1974",
        "page_number": 9,
        "title": "RAS-1974",
        "content_text": "deity in Hong Kong, particularly among the boat-people. There are many temples dedicated to her in the Colony. This particular temple is believed to date from the Sung Dynasty, and with the nearby rock-carving, dated 1274, provides a popular place for pilgrimages. These three last trips were organised by our Vice-president, Mr. James Hayes, who has an extensive knowledge of the history of Hong Kong, particularly its rural areas.\n\nThe ten lectures covered a wide variety of subjects. The first lecture of the year was delivered by Professor Murray Groves, head of the Sociology Department, University of Hong Kong. Professor Groves had lived in New Guinea and worked there as an anthropologist, and he talked about a sea-faring people, the Motu, and their musical styles. His talk was illustrated with slides and tape recordings. The second talk was about Chinese paintings in the William Rockhill Nelson Gallery of Art: a Gallery of international reputation, situated in Kansas, and housing one of the major comprehensive collections of oriental art in the U.S.A. The talk was delivered by Professor Chu-tsing Li, Research Curator of the Gallery, and was illustrated with slides. Later in the year, Professor Winston Hsieh of Missouri University, talked to us about the Canton Delta Project which he is currently heading. The Canton Delta has great significance for scholars of Chinese social organization, urban studies, foreign trade, revolutionary movements and overseas emigration, and it is particularly rich in Chinese and Western source materials. The project is interdisciplinary and we look forward to hearing more about its activities.\n\nIn September Professor P. B. Harris, who heads the Political Science Department of the University of Hong Kong talked to the Society on \"Maoism and Rousseauism\", and in November Mr. Henry Lethbridge of Hong Kong University's Sociology Department described the exploits of two adventurers extraordinary who visited Hong Kong in the late 1880's: David de Mayréna, soi-disant King of the Sedangs in Indo China, and the Marquis de Morès. Both died later in mysterious circumstances. Mr. Lethbridge specialises in the social history of Hong Kong, and participated in our symposium last year on \"Hong Kong: Chinese tradition and the growth of a town”.\n\nDr. Hugh Baker, who also participated in our first symposium which I organised in 1964 on “The Social Organization of the New",
        "txt_file_path": "txt/dfo323lmgvd/RAS-1974.txt",
        "external_url": "https://digitalrepository.lib.hku.hk/catalog/x633mp077",
        "rank": 0
    },
    {
        "id": 215286,
        "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-2001",
        "page_number": 63,
        "title": "RAS-2001",
        "content_text": "II\n\nasked that Britain should approach Australia to secure for Hong Kong the same tariff preference as Britain enjoyed, in accordance with article 15 of the Ottawa agreement. He pointed out that Hong Kong had granted Australian brandy a preference in the excise duty of three dollars a gallon and had received nothing in return. Cunliffe-Lister refused to take any action minuting that he was not prepared to press for equal treatment in the dominions for British and colonial industries like shipbuilding in which owing to different standards of living the levels of cost were necessarily different. This attitude shocked the civil servants in the Colonial Office. One senior official minuted, 'I have always assumed that the Secretary of State would be the advocate of colonial interests.' The matter was not allowed to rest there in spite of the views expressed by Cunliffe-Lister. Officials consulted the Board of Trade and when that department raised no objection a letter was sent to the Australian High Commission asking for the grant of preference. The Australian government was most unwilling to extend preference to a territory with oriental wages even though it was part of the empire, but eventually granted all the colonies preference at the same rate as Britain in respect of vessels over 500 tons only.\n\nIn 1933 Hong Kong manufacturers followed the lead of the Singapore factory in vigorously expanding their exports. Sales to Britain grew from HK$16,190 in 1930 to HK$454,252 in 1933 and to HK$1,823,874 in 1934. British manufacturers protested to the Board of Trade about this competition in their home market and the Board of Trade passed on their complaints to the Colonial Office. Cunliffe-Lister suggested that Britain should confine its preference to primary products and that entry free of duty should be refused to colonial manufactured goods which could compete with an efficient British industry. This proposal did not find favour with the civil service. Instead officials proposed that an interdepartmental committee should be set up to consider the whole question of the industrial development of the colonial empire. The committee was composed of officials from the Board of Trade, the Department of Overseas Trade, the Dominions Office and the Colonial Office. The first meeting was held in January 1934. R.V. Vernon of the Colonial Office was the chairman and was said to have been largely instrumental in drafting the committee's report.\n\nThe committee concluded that industrial development in the colonial empire was an inevitable contingency which could not be prohibited or indefinitely retarded; but the committee saw no reason why a conscious policy of the artificial encouragement of industry should be undertaken by the institution of a tariff high enough to protect the products of local industry from imports from Britain or elsewhere. The interests of British manufacturers and of colonial consumers who would have to pay a higher price for products previously imported should also be considered. So the",
        "txt_file_path": "txt/dfo323lmgvd/RAS-2001.txt",
        "external_url": "https://digitalrepository.lib.hku.hk/catalog/zg651950g",
        "rank": 0
    },
    {
        "id": 215297,
        "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-2001",
        "page_number": 74,
        "title": "RAS-2001",
        "content_text": "22\n\n22. The requirement of an empire content of 25 per cent to qualify for preference was set in consultation with the Board of Trade, which pointed out that some British manufacturers using foreign sources of raw material would not qualify for preference if the empire content was set at 50 per cent. CO323/1192/11.\n\n23. L.M. Drummond, British Economic Policy and the Empire 1919–1939 (London, 1972), 92; Report of the Interdepartmental Committee on the Industrial Development of the Colonial Empire, Colonial Office Confidential Print 445, CO885/40.\n\n24. Secretary of State to all colonies and protectorates, 4 Feb. 1932, DO35/242/4, PRO.\n\n25. Minutes of a conference at the Colonial Office, 27 June 1932, CO323/1193/2.\n\n26. The texts of the agreements are in Imperial Economic Conference at Ottawa Cmd4175 (London, 1932), 19–76.\n\n27. Canada agreed to extend to the colonies and protectorates the preferences accorded to Britain, but in practice raised objections when requested to do so by the British government. See for example CO323/1099/16, CO852/51/9 and CO852/251/10. Cunliffe-Lister minute, 22 Oct 1933, CO323/1232/8, 'Canada has done less than nothing to implement the most essential part of the Ottawa accords.'\n\n28. See the comments in paragraphs 18 and 30 of the Report of the Interdepartmental Committee.\n\n29. Confidential Circular Despatch, 29 Sept. 1932, CO854/174. Sir Philip Cunliffe-Lister is better known by his later title, Viscount Swinton.\n\n30. Secretary of State to Governor of Ceylon, 27 Sept. 1932; S. of S. to High Commissioner, Federated Malay States, 30 Sept. 1932; S. of S. to Barbados, 24 Oct. 1932; S. of S. to Jamaica, 10 Oct. 1932; S. of S. to Windward Islands, 24 Oct. 1932, CO323/1188/5. A clause was drafted for inclusion in the 1933 Finance Bill to allow Britain to withdraw preferences from any colony if it did not grant the Ottawa preferences to empire products, CO323/1230/3.\n\n31. Officer Administering Government, Leeward Islands to Secretary of State, 19 Oct. 1932, CO323/1188/5.\n\n32. Governor Barbados to Secretary of State, 17 Oct. 1932, CO323/1188/5.\n\n33. Governor Windward Islands to Secretary of State, 21 Oct. 1932, CO323/1188/5.\n\n34. Stevens to Cunliffe-Lister, 17 Nov. 1932, CO323/1193/11.\n\n35. Cunliffe-Lister to Stevens, 8 Dec. 1932, CO323/1193/11.\n\n36. Hong Kong Trade Returns show exports of rubber shoes to the British West Indies as follows: 1932 - HK$4,894; 1933 - 116,670; 1934 - 643,337; 1935 - 574,376; 1936 - 1,071,932; 1937 - 1,427,634.\n\n37. High Commissioner for Canada to Cunliffe-Lister, 15 Nov. 1933, CO323/1232/8.\n\n38. Cunliffe-Lister to High Commissioner, 27 Nov. 1933, CO323/1232/8. Canada later succeeded in excluding Singapore shoes by setting a fictitious high rate of exchange for the Singapore dollar. See minute by Calder, 8 June 1933, CO323/1232/8.\n\n39. Peel to Cunliffe-Lister, 13 Nov. 1933, CO323/1231/16.\n\n40. Minute by Vernon, 21 Dec. 1933, CO323/1231/16. R.V. Vernon was an Assistant Secretary who joined the Colonial Office in 1900. He had previously expressed his disapproval when Cunliffe-Lister refused to approach India and South Africa to ask for imperial preference for Hong Kong's rubber shoes: 'The Secretary of State is placed practically in the position of a trustee who is bound to act with the sole regard to the interests of the colonies and is not at liberty to abstain from any claim on the account of the interests of U.K. industry or the susceptibilities of dominion industrial interests.' Minute, 9 Nov. 1933, CO323/1232/3. The attitude of Cunliffe-Lister may be contrasted with that of Alan Lennox-Boyd (Colonial Secretary 1954-59) who threatened to resign if Hong Kong was forced to accept a limitation on its textile exports to Britain. Harold Macmillan, Riding the Storm, 1954–1959 (London, 1971), 739-43.\n\n41. CO323/1294/3.\n\n42. Hong Kong Trade Returns 1932, 1933, 1934.\n\n43. Minute by Cunliffe-Lister, 7 June 1933, CO323/1232/8.\n\n44. Edgcumbe (Department of Overseas Trade) to Eastwood (Colonial Office), 18 April 1936, CO323/1298/10.",
        "txt_file_path": "txt/dfo323lmgvd/RAS-2001.txt",
        "external_url": "https://digitalrepository.lib.hku.hk/catalog/zg651950g",
        "rank": 0
    }
]