[ { "id": 207194, "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": 265, "title": "RAS-1974", "content_text": "LIST OF MEMBERS\n\n259\n\nORDINARY MEMBERS:\n\nMacCALLUM, I. - c/o Colonial Secretariat, Lower Albert Rd., H.K.\n\nMacGREGOR, Keith - 19, South Bay Close, Repulse Bay, H.K.\n\nMacLEAN, R. - 326-8, Tung Ying Building, 100, Nathan Road, Kowloon.\n\nMAHLKE, William J. - c/o Estates Office, University of Hong Kong, Pokfulam, H.K.\n\nMAO, Dr. Philip W. C., F.R.C.S. - P.O. Box 104, Macau.\n\nMARKEY, John C. - 117, Main Road, Kam Tin, N.T.\n\nMARTINHO-MARQUES, E. J. - 1, Abermor Court, May Road, H.K.\n\nMATHIAS, John R. G. - Johnson, Stokes & Master, Hong Kong Bank Building, H.K.\n\nMCCABE, Mrs. S. J. - Dept. of Sociology, University of Hong Kong, Pokfulam, H.K.\n\nMcELNEY, Brian S. - 1206, Shell House, 24, Queen's Road, C., H.K.\n\nMcGOUGH, James P. - 10, Fort Street, 2nd floor, H.K.\n\nMEGGITT, Mrs. B. - 34, Kennedy Road, Block C, 9th floor, H.K.\n\nMIAO, Miss Irene Hung - c/o Miss G. Ou, P.O. Box 6440, Kowloon.\n\nMILLER, A. C. - 36, New Henry House, 10, Ice House St., H.K.\n\nMORGAN, Mrs. Carole - 3, Macdonnell Road, Flat 602, H.K.\n\nMORROW, Miss Sharon E. - c/o Jardine Matheson & Co. Ltd., Insurance Dept., Jardine House, H.K.\n\nMOSLER, Mrs. M. - c/o Jardine Matheson & Co. Ltd., Jardine House, H.K.\n\nMOYLE, G. C. - Anthropology Section, New Asia College, Chinese University of Hong Kong, Shatin, N.T.\n\nMUNN, Mrs. E. - Jardine Matheson & Co. Ltd., Jardine House, H.K.\n\nMYERS, John T. - 304, Man Yee Building, H.K.\n\nNEWBIGGING, D. K. - 8, Abermor Court, 15 May Road, H.K.\n\nNG, Peter P. K. - Parker Pen Co. (F.E.) Ltd., Caxton House, 1 Duddell Street, H.K.\n\nNICOL, C. A. A. - Sandy Bay Children's Orthopaedic Hospital, Sandy Bay, H.K.\n\nNISHIMURA, Masato - c/o The British Council, Star House, 3rd floor, Kowloon.\n\nO'BRIEN, Dr. John P. - \n\nO'HARA, Mrs. Margaret - Jardine House, 12th floor, H.K.\n\n...\n\nCameraman Ltd., 22A, Westlands Road, 6th floor, H.K.", "txt_file_path": "txt/dfo323lmgvd/RAS-1974.txt", "external_url": "https://digitalrepository.lib.hku.hk/catalog/x633mp077", "rank": 0 }, { "id": 208291, "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-1978", "page_number": 15, "title": "RAS-1978", "content_text": "CONTENTS\n\nEDITORIAL -\n\nPRESIDENT'S REPORT -\n\nHON. TREASURER'S REPORT -\n\nTHE LIBRARY -\n\nPage\n\n1\n\n3\n\n9\n\n12\n\nArticles :\n\nThe Reform of Military Education in Late Ch'ing China, 1842-1895 -- RICHARD J. SMITH\n\n15\n\n41\n\nAltar Images from Hunan and Kiangsi KEITH STEVENS Is Face the Same as Li? — A critical note on Agassi and Jarvie, 'A Study in Westernization' MARGARET N. NG\n\n49\n\n0 Ancestors in the Spring -- The Qingming Festival in Central China GÖRAN AJMER\n\n-\n\n59\n\n(83\n\nThe Politicization of Chinese Craft Organization in Post World War II Hong Kong - EUGENE COOPER Shiwan Pottery Explored-FREDRIKKe Skinsnes ScollaRD\n\n101\n\nVillage Government in China [1933]—C. MARTIN WILBUR\n\n113\n\nWoodblock Printing, an Essential Medium of Culture Inheritance in Chinese History — DAVID H. S. CHAU\n\n175\n\nNOTES AND QUERIES:\n\n=\n\n国\n\n-\n\nMissing Maps: Sowerby's \"Sport & Science on the Sino-Mongolian Frontier\" - H. A. RYDINGS Brook's Gecko Found in Macau - J. D. ROMER Mud Skis or Scooter, Deep Bay, Hong Kong The Saintly Guo- KEITH STEVENS - The Immortal Fan - KEITH STEVENS\n\nAncestral Images - KEITH STEVENS StevENS Marble Hall Peter Wesley-Smith Distribution of Forts and Guard Stations on Lantau Island during the late Ch'ing period -\n\nThe Cannons on the Wall of the Tung Chung Fort, Lantau Island, Hong Kong\n\n-\n\nThe Fat Tong Mun Fort (or the Tung Lung Fort)\n\n-\n\n- 190\n\n191\n\n·\n\n-\n\n· 192\n\n-\n\n- 193\n\n-\n\nANTHONY K. K. SIU\n\nFirst Record of the Pelobatid Frog-J. D. ROMER Two Bibliographical Notices JAMES HAYES\n\nBOOK REVIEWS\n\n-\n\n-\n\n- 198\n\n200\n\n- 202\n\n205\n\n607 (09\n\n- 211\n\n- 213\n\n214\n\nV\n\nPage 15\n\nPage 16", "txt_file_path": "txt/dfo323lmgvd/RAS-1978.txt", "external_url": "https://digitalrepository.lib.hku.hk/catalog/8g84t8593", "rank": 0 }, { "id": 208341, "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-1978", "page_number": 65, "title": "RAS-1978", "content_text": "IS FACE THE SAME AS LI?\n\nA CRITICAL NOTE ON AGASSI AND JARVIE, 'A STUDY IN WESTERNIZATION'\n\nMARGARET N. NG*\n\nThe Claim that Face is the Same as Li\n\nThis paper has a very simple aim: to point out and explain a confusion made by Joseph Agassi and I.C. Jarvie in their controversial paper, 'A Study in Westernization'. In this paper, the authors raise the question, how far is Hong Kong westernized, and answer, Hong Kong is superficially westernized but deeply Chinese, because the Chinese in Hong Kong are dominated by the concern for face, which, being Confucian, is deeply Chinese. In the present note I shall not address myself to the central question of how westernized Hong Kong is; I shall concentrate on criticizing the subsidiary theory that face is Confucian. My contention is that Agassi and Jarvie have erroneously confused face with li (translated as propriety, courtesy, rites, all of which are notoriously inadequate). This is perhaps a minor error, but as no one seems to have noticed it I think I should give my own criticism of it, for what it is worth.\n\nAgassi and Jarvie claim that face is Confucian; this claim is made directly on p. 140 of their paper. The authors are explaining that the reason why it is difficult to change the Chinese preoccupation is because there is a narrow 'traditional view that the Chinese way of doing things is not simply the best, or the right, way of doing things, but the only way of doing things'; they allege that Confucius can be sympathetically read to say that causing others to lose face is the worst way to lose face, and that 'Men are human because they have face to care--without it they lose human dignity'. From this it is clear that the authors think that li, fundamental in the teachings of Confucius, is the same as face.\n\n* Dr. Margaret Ng has BA and Ph.D. degrees in Psychology from the Universities of Hong Kong and Minnesota, and until recently was on the administrative staff of the Centre of Asian Studies, University of Hong Kong.", "txt_file_path": "txt/dfo323lmgvd/RAS-1978.txt", "external_url": "https://digitalrepository.lib.hku.hk/catalog/8g84t8593", "rank": 0 }, { "id": 208342, "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-1978", "page_number": 66, "title": "RAS-1978", "content_text": "50\n\nMARGARET N. NG\n\nThis view is probably quite common. People who are alien to a Chinese society in which both li and face prevail usually find it difficult to see any distinction between the two. On the other hand, people who are born into the system find the distinction obvious and so impossible to explain. There is, of course, the fact that the verbal expressions for 'loss of face' and 'loss of li' are not interchangeable, but this has little to do with the real unease felt by the modern native Chinese who finds confusion between the two incredible and irritating. To them, the most fundamental, the 'gut' difference between face and li is that the concern for li is honorable, the concern for face is dishonorable. It is no loss of face to admit to foreigners that the Chinese are preoccupied with li; indeed, it is a source of pride that China is the 'Country of Li and Yi (righteousness)'; it is a loss of face to admit to foreigners that the Chinese are preoccupied with face. Li is obviously Good, and face is obviously Bad.\n\n2\n\nWithout making too much of the verbal difference between face and li, and without attempting to probe into the psychology or sociology of the modern native Chinese, I suggest their 'gut feelings' that li is honorable and face not, be taken into account and explained, if only as illusory or a mistake. On the other hand, the great weakness of simply dismissing the confusion made by Agassi and Jarvie between li and face as an accidental error, excusable in foreigners, is that we thereby lose the opportunity to study a very interesting question, what has face to do with li and the general teachings of Confucius? So far as I know, few people have raised this question, let alone considered answers to it. The theory of Agassi and Jarvie that face is the same as li is the closest to an answer to it, and a very bold one. In my opinion, their mistake is a very interesting one, and needs far more than the obvious to explain it. For, there is a very deep connection between face and li.\n\nFace and Li are Not the Same\n\nThe fact that both Confucianism and face reflect their context of a pride-shame3 society and support it makes it easy to confuse li and face. However, once we understand that shame is not always an external sanction, as is suggested in early anthropological studies, but can be internal, we can see clearly that the two reflect and support different parts of the pride-shame society. To confuse face", "txt_file_path": "txt/dfo323lmgvd/RAS-1978.txt", "external_url": "https://digitalrepository.lib.hku.hk/catalog/8g84t8593", "rank": 0 }, { "id": 208344, "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-1978", "page_number": 68, "title": "RAS-1978", "content_text": "52 \n\nMARGARET N. NG \n\nTsang Tzu, urges the importance of 'being careful when one is alone', not to deviate from the path of virtue and propriety. \n\nTo claim fi and face are the same and that when Confucius talked about li he was talking about face would lead us into absurdities. For instance: 'Say not what is not proper (not in accordance with li); see not what is not proper; do not what is not proper' becomes, 'Say not what will make you lose face; see not what will make you lose face; do not what will make you lose face'. This reduces what is a sincere and serious moral teaching into a merely worldly-wise admonition no more moral than 'How to Make Friends and Influence People', and if Chinese morality is Confucian, then the Chinese have no morality at all. Surely this is an absurd conclusion. \n\nWhere Face and Li Conflict \n\nA great part of li concerns self-cultivation through self-discipline and thus constantly exhorts humility. Humility, except a sort of ostentatious self-effacement which is a travesty of it, in deference to the importance of another, has no place in face at all. The concern for one's own face is, generally, the opposite of humility. Li has a kind of honesty and integrity which admonishes against exaggeration, against claiming more for what one really is or has really done, or really deserves. Confucius teaches, the superior man does not fear not getting credit for his abilities; rather he fears that he has not the abilities which deserve credit. Face has no regard for what really is the case when it loudly makes its claims, and is concerned only about the immediate effects such claims would bring. Thus li warns against speaking too soon, promising too lightly, talking too extravagantly, acting too elaborately, in case reality does not live up to it; but face requires us to go constantly and blithely into glib speech, extravagant compliments, pretty gestures, even if they are empty, provided they help preserve or gain face for everyone. \n\nFace and li conflict sharply over the matter of criticism. While it is generally against both face and li to declare casually or broadcast one's elders and betters mistaken or morally wrong, li does allow, even demand, that in grave matters we must bring their attention to their faults. It is not loyalty, says Confucius, for the subject to refrain from advising his prince of his faults.10 Li advises", "txt_file_path": "txt/dfo323lmgvd/RAS-1978.txt", "external_url": "https://digitalrepository.lib.hku.hk/catalog/8g84t8593", "rank": 0 }, { "id": 208346, "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-1978", "page_number": 70, "title": "RAS-1978", "content_text": "54\n\nMARGARET N. NG\n\nHowever, face aims at preserving harmony on the surface by preventing conflicts from becoming open; whereas li aims at achieving social harmony through the individual's efforts of self-discipline to conform to a common social ideal in which no conflict could arise.\n\nThe resemblance between face and li, and the prevalence of the concern with face and the dominance of Confucianism in traditional Chinese society, are not accidental. They are both reflections of the aspirations of a pride-shame culture. I suggest, in answer to the question, how are face and li related, that li is the ideal, and face is a subterfuge due to the severe demands of that ideal, and the delay of the realization of that ideal which may, of course, never be completely realizable. The ideal is the social harmony and stability and the individual's perfect adjustment in society so well expressed in Confucianism. In the Confucian aspiration, personal or material interest is never allowed precedence over social stability and harmony, and Confucianism is prepared to sacrifice anything to maintain that. It teaches that material comfort is not as valuable as contentment, that it is right and fitting for the learned man to 'roll up his talents like a painting scroll' should the times or the prince be adverse to making proper use of them.19 It teaches that without self-discipline there is no internal harmony for the individual, and without internal harmony of the individual there is no harmony and orderliness in society and state. And so one must watch out for the social aspect of one's every act; no action is entirely a private matter, and every sin a public offence.\n\nThe concern with face stems from the same anxiety for social harmony and preservation of a smooth-running stream of social transactions. But face tries to evade the sacrifices considered by Confucianism to be necessary to bring about that state of affairs. It is precisely to rescue some material progress that face takes the place of li, not to block it completely as Agassi and Jarvie think. Face is cunning and impromptu as li is planned and principled. Face only comes up when suddenly something becomes public; it is forever concerned with patchwork remedies. Face is compatible with greed and selfishness; the person who is concerned about face does not sacrifice opportunities for material gain because he fears to lose face by it; he tries to look for ways to get his gain and preserve his face by some means or other, and the system of face allows plenty of devices for such occasions. Face is adaptable and", "txt_file_path": "txt/dfo323lmgvd/RAS-1978.txt", "external_url": "https://digitalrepository.lib.hku.hk/catalog/8g84t8593", "rank": 0 }, { "id": 208348, "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-1978", "page_number": 72, "title": "RAS-1978", "content_text": "56\n\nMARGARET N. NG\n\nthan to cultivate inner piety, to attempt to pacify an uneasy conscience with external acts of penance rather than to uproot the evil in their hearts, to make up for the lack of feeling of charity in occasional works of mercy or donations of money. In short, the subterfuge of internal saintliness is external acts of conventional piety,\n\nClearly, just as Confucian scholars are aware of the subterfuge of the small man, the Catholic Church has been aware of this as a problem. The setting up such images as St. Thérèse the Little Flower who never did an extraordinary thing but converted all her ordinary actions into acts of devotion by her pious intentions, is possibly an attempt to counter it. But the Little Flower, for all her inwardness, is a pressure to attain a high standard, and so cannot remove the need for a subterfuge. To achieve this, what is needed is perhaps to lower the standards to some more easily attainable level. Here Catholicism is in a better position than Confucianism, since it is not essentially elitist, and has no need to maintain superiority by maintaining a superior ideal of conduct.\n\nFace, Li and the Two Levels of Pride-Shame\n\nWhat I have been arguing, I hope, also bears upon a broader question: how far is pride-shame an external sanction? It has been pointed out, thus refuting the earlier and very popular theory that shame is an external sanction in operation only when there is an audience, that shame can be internalized. Without recognizing internalized pride-shame we cannot understand Confucian or elitist Chinese culture as a pride-shame culture, because Confucian Chinese culture depends on the loyalty to li, not face, and li is internalized, not only an external sanction. That li is felt to be honorable by the modern Chinese who are quite willing to attack face as something silly and obstructive shows us how much more deep-seated is the pride in li.\n\nIn the light of the main thesis of Agassi and Jarvie, this loyalty to li is also much more dangerous. The main thesis of the paper is, what hinders a Chinese society such as Hong Kong from westernization, and thus progress, is the sense of cultural superiority of the Chinese. The another locate this sense in their complacency in upholding this very troublesome system of face, and so hold implicitly the optimistic thesis that if face goes, progress will be possible.", "txt_file_path": "txt/dfo323lmgvd/RAS-1978.txt", "external_url": "https://digitalrepository.lib.hku.hk/catalog/8g84t8593", "rank": 0 }, { "id": 208350, "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-1978", "page_number": 74, "title": "RAS-1978", "content_text": "58\n\nMARGARET N. NG\n\n曾子曰:君子以文會友,以友補仁。\n\n12 Ibid., 1, 4. 曾子曰:吾日三省吾身。\n\n13 Ibid., XIX, 21. 曾子曰:君子之過也,如日月之食焉。過也,人皆見之。更也,人皆仰之。\n\n14 Ibid., XIX, 8.\n\n15 Ibid., V, 15. 子曰:敏而好學,不恥下問,是以謂之文也。\n\n16 Ibid, II, 17. 子曰:由,誨女,知之乎。知之為知之,不知為不知,是知也。\n\n17 Ibid, II, 15. 子入太廟,每事問。或曰:孰謂鄹人之子知禮乎。子入太廟,每事問。子聞之曰:是禮也。\n\n18 Ibid., I, 8.\n\n19 Ibid., XV, 7. 邦有道則仕,邦無道則可卷而懷之。\n\n20 See Note 3 above.\n\n21 In Gerhart Piers and Milton Singer, Shame and Guilt, Charles C. Thomas, U.S.A., 1953, Piers argues that shame can be internal and the required audience can also be internalized. But his arguments mainly concern the development of shame as a reaction formation in individuals in Western culture. Incidentally, he also characterizes shame as the realization that one has fallen short of an ideal self.", "txt_file_path": "txt/dfo323lmgvd/RAS-1978.txt", "external_url": "https://digitalrepository.lib.hku.hk/catalog/8g84t8593", "rank": 0 }, { "id": 208819, "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-1979", "page_number": 276, "title": "RAS-1979", "content_text": "ORDINARY LOCAL MEMBERS\n\nMORGAN, Ms. V. Elaine, The Library, University of Hong Kong, HONG KONG.\n\nMORITZ, Mr. Frederick A., 4B, Sea and Sky Court, 92 Stanley Main Street, Stanley, HONG KONG.\n\nMORTON, Mr. R. J. McK., Legal Aid Department, 19/F Sincere Building, 173 Des Voeux Road C., HONG KONG.\n\nMOYLE, Mr. G. C., 64 Mile Taipo Road, NEW TERRITORIES.\n\nMULLOY, Mr. G. N., Flat C, 1 Homestead Road, The Peak, HONG KONG.\n\nNEWBIGGING, Mr. D. K., 35 Mount Kellett Road, The Peak, HONG KONG\n\nNG, Dr. Margaret N., Arts Mansion 5/F, Flat C, 43 Wongneichong Road, Happy Valley, HONG KONG\n\nNG, Miss Tonia, H.K. Tourist Association, Connaught Centre, 35/F, HONG KONG.\n\nNGUYET, Mrs. Tuyet, c/o Arts of Asia, 1309 Kowloon Centre, 29-43 Ashley Road, KOWLOON.\n\nO'HARA, Mr. Randolph, c/o The City Hall Library, Edinburgh Place, HONG KONG.\n\nOJEDA, Mr. J. de, Spanish Consul General, 1403 Melbourne Plaza, 33 Queen's Road Central, HONG KONG.\n\nONG, Dr. Guan Bee, Dept. of Surgery, University of Hong Kong, HONG KONG.\n\nORR, Mr. I. C., Room 506 Central Govt. Offices, Main Wing, Lower Albert Road, HONG KONG.\n\nOUTCH, Mr. W. T., c/o Essex Asia Ltd., 118 Austin Road, Tsim Sha Tsui, KOWLOON.\n\nOXLEY, Mr. C. W. B., District Office, Sai Kung, Sai Po Kong Govt. Offices, 792 Prince Edward Road, KOWLOON.\n\nPALMER, Mrs. R. M., 2 Old Peak Road, 2/F Front, HONG KONG.\n\nPARR, Mr. M. J., c/o Wardley Ltd, G.P.O. Box 8983, HONG KONG.\n\nPARRINGTON, Miss June, Arts Faculty Office, University of Hong Kong, HONG KONG.\n\nPARRY, Mr. Roger H., c/o The Marine Department, 102 Connaught Road C., HONG KONG.\n\nPAUL, Mrs. Anne Carse, 9 Jade House, 47C Stubbs Road, HONG KONG.\n\nPEACOCK, Mr. I. R., 5A Manhattan Tower, 63 Repulse Bay Road, HONG KONG.\n\nPERESYPKIN, Mr. Oleg P., P.O. Box 1382, HONG KONG.\n\nPICKARD, Mrs. Jane, Flat A6, 14 Shouson Hill Road, HONG KONG.\n\n249", "txt_file_path": "txt/dfo323lmgvd/RAS-1979.txt", "external_url": "https://digitalrepository.lib.hku.hk/catalog/2801w5938", "rank": 0 }, { "id": 209325, "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-1981", "page_number": 228, "title": "RAS-1981", "content_text": "214\n\nKING, Miss Carol A. KIRKBRIDE, Mr K.M.G. KROPATSCHECK, Mrs Hannemarie\n\nKWAN, Mrs Alice W.S.C. KWOK, Mr Ping Leong LACK, Mr Alan J. LAI, Miss Merlin S.C. LANG, Mr Frederick G. LAWRENCE, Mr Anthony LAWTON, Mr David LEE, Mr Peter E.I. LEE, Mr Peter J. LEE, Mrs R.M.\n\nLEE, Miss Sandra Suk Yee LEE, Mrs S. Jane LERNER, Mr Bernard LEVIN, Mr David A. LEVIN, Ms. Stephanie S. LI, Mr Edwin Lao LI, Mr Shi-Yi LIARDET, Mr A.J. LIN, Mr Tien-Wai\n\nLIU, Miss Dimon\n\nLLOYD, Mrs Aileen S. LLOYD, Mrs Waltraud E.\n\nLO, Miss Alexandra Dak Wai LO, Mr Shu-wing LOCKING, Mr J.R. LOFTS, Prof. Brian LOK, Dr Leonora Shin U. LOK, Miss Wai Kwan LOVELL, Mrs Hin-Cheung LUNNEY, Mr Raymond LUTZ, Mr Hans F. MA, Prof. Ho-Kei MA, Mrs Jackie\n\nMA, Prof. Meng, MBE MACCABE, Mrs S.J. MACCALLUM, Mr. I.\n\nMACCALLUM, Mrs Wendy M.\n\nMACGREGOR, Mr Keith\n\nMAHLKE, Mr William J.\n\nMANSON, Mr James B.\n\nMAO, Dr Philip Wen-chee MARKEY, Mr J.C. MARTIN, Dr Michael R. MASON, Mr A.K. MATHEW, Mr David\n\nMATHEWS, Mr J.F. MAYERS, Mr Walter MCLEAN, Mrs Robyn H. MCCULLY, Mrs Arthur M. MCDONALD, Mrs John R. MCELNEY, Mr Brian S. MINERS, Dr N.J. MINTER, Mr C.J.W. MITCHELL, Mr Eion A. MITCHELL, Mrs Ruth M. MORGAN, Ms V. Elaine MOSER, Mr Michael J. MOYLE, Mr G.C. MULLOY, Mr G.N. MURPHY, Mr Francis S. NEWBIGGING, Mr D.K. NEWBIGGING, Mrs Carolyn NG, Dr Margaret N. NG, Miss Tonia NGUYET, Mrs Tuyet O'HARA, Mr Randolph ONG, Prof. Guan Bee OUTCH, Mr William T. ORR, Mr Iain Campbell OXLEY, Mr C.W.B. PARRINGTON, Miss June PARRY, Mr Roger H. PERESYPKIN, Mr Oleg P. PICKARD, Mrs Jane PICKFORD, Mr John B. PRESCOTT, Mr Jon A. PRYOR, Dr E.G.\n\nQUESTED, Mrs Rosemary RAM, Mrs Jane REDDING, Dr S.G.\n\nREYNOLDS, Prof. W.A.\n\nREYNOLDS, Mrs Johanne\n\nRHODES, Mr Peter F.\n\nRIBEIRO, Mrs Susan\n\nRICHARDS, Dr S.F.\n\nRICHARDS, Mrs J.K. RICK, Mr D.R. RIGG, Mrs Jillian R. ROBERTSON, Mrs A.G. ROBERTSON, Mrs W.G. ROHRS, Mr Kenneth R. ROPER, Mr G.W.\n\nROSS, Mr David M. ROWARK, Mrs Sally", "txt_file_path": "txt/dfo323lmgvd/RAS-1981.txt", "external_url": "https://digitalrepository.lib.hku.hk/catalog/ff36bt18m", "rank": 0 } ]