[
    {
        "id": 209225,
        "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": 128,
        "title": "RAS-1981",
        "content_text": "RESIDENTIAL MOBILITY AND \n\nKINSHIP TIES AMONG \n\nURBAN CHINESE FAMILIES IN HONG KONG \n\nM. K. LEE \n\nSome years ago Robert Mitchell concluded from his survey in Hong Kong that kin relationships had declined in importance compared to other types of relationships. As he stated it, \"Hong Kong married couples have more social contacts with co-workers than with many of their own kinsmen. They get out together even more often with their neighbours.\" F.M. Wong endorsed this position, and argued that sociability among urban Chinese families in Hong Kong is mainly organized around work associates, friends, and neighbours, and that “contacts with kin are least frequent.\"2 \n\nFew noticed that Mitchell's statistics on this issue were faulty. He did not use the same scale to measure frequencies of contact with relatives, with co-workers, and with neighbours. Moreover, even with Mitchell's scales, 45 percent of the men (and 42 percent of the women) in his sample reported that they \"never\" contacted their neighbours, while only 31 percent of the men (and 41 percent of the women) gave the same reply when asked about contact with co-workers. Indeed, 41 percent of his respondents \"never\" contacted spouses' aunts and uncles, but only 31 percent \"never\" contacted their own aunts, and 22 percent their spouses' siblings. On the basis of other research, Podmore and Chaney argued that \"relations with close kin are strengthened as the traditional support rendered by the clan has diminished in the urban-industrial society of Hong Kong, where welfare support from government institutions is negligible.\" And there are good grounds for this opposing point of view,3 \n\nFollowing from Mitchell's study, in 1977, I conducted a survey of a sample of 420 families in Oi Man Estate to find out how closely they related to their kin, in comparison with co-workers and neighbours.* Oi Man, located in East Kowloon, was completed in 1974, and by the \n\n*The research project on which this paper is based was supported by a grant from the Research Committee, the Hong Kong Polytechnic, where Mr. Lee is a Senior Lecturer.",
        "txt_file_path": "txt/dfo323lmgvd/RAS-1981.txt",
        "external_url": "https://digitalrepository.lib.hku.hk/catalog/ff36bt18m",
        "rank": 0
    },
    {
        "id": 209226,
        "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": 129,
        "title": "RAS-1981",
        "content_text": "RESIDENTIAL MOBILITY AND KINSHIP TIES AMONG URBAN CHINESE FAMILIES IN HK\n\n115\n\ntime the survey was undertaken, most residents had moved into the estate for three years. All had moved from within Hong Kong (including the New Territories).\n\nIn the course of our interviews, we asked household heads or their spouses two questions concerning their social contacts after they moved into Oi Man. These were: \"Who do you most frequently have round for dinner or an evening at home?” and “Who would you say are the few people whom you most frequently visit or go out together with?\" We asked them to select their responses from five categories, \"close relatives\", \"kin\", \"workmates\", \"neighbours\", and \"friends\". The definitions of these words were left to them and not probed into. The responses are tabulated in Table 1. It is obvious that the most important social contacts reported were \"close relatives.\"\n\nTable 1 Social Contacts of Oi Man Estate Residents\n\n  \n    Social contacts\n    Households that frequently invited social contacts home\n    Households that frequently went out with social contacts\n  \n  \n    Close Relatives\n    56.2%\n    50.5%\n  \n  \n    Kin\n    11.2\n    13.1\n  \n  \n    Work-mates\n    9.8\n    9.5\n  \n  \n    Neighbours\n    1.2\n    1.2\n  \n  \n    Friends\n    11.4\n    10.2\n  \n  \n    None\n    11.4\n    10.5\n  \n  \n    Others\n    1.0\n    2.6\n  \n  \n    Total\n    100.0 (420)\n    100.0 (420)\n  \n\nIn the light of differences in the choice of social contacts by manual and non-manual workers shown in studies in the United Kingdom and elsewhere, we tried to relate these responses to the respondents' occupational class (see Table 2). The responses from the 215 manual workers and 87 non-manual workers show that the two occupational classes in Oi Man Estate did not differ significantly in their choice of social contacts at the time of the survey. Manual workers were only slightly more bound to going out with their \"close relatives\", and non-manual workers with their kin, workmates, and friends. It should be noted, nonetheless, that the income differences of manual and non-manual workers in public housing estates are not greatly different, and this may account partly for the similarities.",
        "txt_file_path": "txt/dfo323lmgvd/RAS-1981.txt",
        "external_url": "https://digitalrepository.lib.hku.hk/catalog/ff36bt18m",
        "rank": 0
    },
    {
        "id": 209227,
        "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": 130,
        "title": "RAS-1981",
        "content_text": "116\n\nLEC MING-KWAN\n\nTable 2 Differences between Social Contacts of Manual and Non-Manual Workers\n\n  \n    Social contacts\n    Households that frequently invited social contacts home\n    Households that frequently went out with social contacts\n  \n  \n    \n    Manual\n    Non-manual\n    Manual\n    Non-manual\n  \n  \n    Close Relatives\n    50.5%\n    52.9%\n    61.9%\n    52.9%\n  \n  \n    Kin\n    11.6\n    9.2\n    9.8\n    12.6\n  \n  \n    Work-mates\n    14.0\n    17.2\n    8.8\n    11.5\n  \n  \n    Neighbours\n    1.4\n    1.1\n    1.4\n    0.0\n  \n  \n    Friends and Others\n    11.2\n    14.9\n    10.7\n    16.1\n  \n  \n    None\n    11.6\n    4.6\n    7.4\n    6.9\n  \n  \n    Total\n    100.0%\n    100.0%\n    100.0%\n    100.0%\n  \n  \n    \n    (215)\n    (87)\n    (215)\n    (87)\n  \n\nDid residential mobility uproot social ties and weaken kinship relationships when the families moved into Oi Man? We asked the respondents if their social contact with different categories of people became \"more frequent\", were \"as frequent\", or became \"less frequent\" after they moved into the estate. The responses, tabulated in Table 3, suggest that about half of the respondents did not feel that moving changed the frequency of their contact with these people. But of the other half, more felt that moving made them see their \"close relatives\", \"kin\" and \"workmates\" less frequently, but their \"neighbours\" more frequently.\n\n  \n    Frequency of Contact\n    Close Relatives\n    Kin\n    Workmates\n    Neighbours\n  \n  \n    More frequent\n    15.0%\n    4.1%\n    15.1%\n    41.1%\n  \n  \n    As frequent\n    54.0\n    57.1\n    62.1\n    40.9\n  \n  \n    Less frequent\n    31.0\n    38.8\n    22.8\n    18.0\n  \n  \n    Total\n    100.0%\n    100.0%\n    100.0%\n    100.0%\n  \n  \n    \n    (413)\n    (394)\n    (363)\n    (406)\n  \n  \n    No response\n    (7)\n    (26)\n    (57)\n    (14)\n  \n\n(x2 = 211.48 df = 6 Significant at 0.0001 level)",
        "txt_file_path": "txt/dfo323lmgvd/RAS-1981.txt",
        "external_url": "https://digitalrepository.lib.hku.hk/catalog/ff36bt18m",
        "rank": 0
    },
    {
        "id": 209228,
        "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": 131,
        "title": "RAS-1981",
        "content_text": "RESIDENTIAL MOBILITY AND KINSHIP TIES AMONG URBAN CHINESE FAMILIES IN HK 117\n\nAt first sight, these responses appear to be inconsistent with their responses to the earlier questions. Over half had reported that \"close relatives\" and \"kin\" were people most frequently invited home or that they went out with, and they seldom invited home or went out with \"neighbours\". It seems, therefore, that moving did give them the opportunity to distance themselves from some relatives, but that they obviously maintained contact with others. This would explain why it is possible, as a family moves, for ties with \"close relatives\" and \"kin\" to decline and yet they could remain central in the family's social contacts.\n\nContacts with neighbours increased, but neighbours were seldom invited home or gone out with. To explain this, one needs only to understand that neighbouring is a continuous process of diffused, unstructured, and irregular interaction that spans over many areas of social life. It takes place less because of purposeful arrangements than because of situational contingencies. One does not have to make a special effort to talk to a neighbour, for avoiding him may well be more difficult.\n\nAngela Kan's study of neighbours in Hong Kong's public housing estates confirms this observation. She shows that neighbours very frequently greet one another in a friendly way, chat casually together, or observe interactions among their children, but far less frequently visit one another's home and least frequently of all go out for entertainment together.\n\nI think the consequence of residential mobility is that family life is \"privatized\", to use a word defined by Goldthorpe et al. as \"a process that is manifested in a pattern of social life that is centred on, and indeed largely restricted to, the home and conjugal family.\" Privatization is manifested in respondents' leisure activities (Table 4). Weekday leisure was almost always home-centred, with approximately half the respondents and their spouses watching television and listening to music. But even for weekends, one-third of the respondents and their spouses chose to stay at home. Few reported that they spent much time visiting, and only 7 percent of the household heads and 4 percent of their spouses reported that they were members of any voluntary associations.\n\nAlso, when asked where they went for daily necessities, medical services, tea, the large majority of respondents named places within the estate (Table 5). After all, Oi Man is among the most modernized housing estates in Hong Kong. Flats are relatively bigger from 357 sq.ft. to 591 sq.ft. as compared with 86 sq.ft. to 393 sq. ft. for all pre-1973 estates. Each flat is equipped with piped gas and communal television.",
        "txt_file_path": "txt/dfo323lmgvd/RAS-1981.txt",
        "external_url": "https://digitalrepository.lib.hku.hk/catalog/ff36bt18m",
        "rank": 0
    },
    {
        "id": 209229,
        "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": 132,
        "title": "RAS-1981",
        "content_text": "118\n\nLEC MING-KWAN\n\nTable 4 Leisure Activities on Weekdays and Weekends\n\n  \n    Leisure Activities\n    Weekdays\n    Weekends\n  \n  \n    \n    Respondent\n    Spouse\n    Respondent\n    Spouse\n  \n  \n    In-door\n    73.3%\n    85.4%\n    32.5%\n    39.9%\n  \n  \n    none\n    15.9%\n    17.4%\n    10.3%\n    17.9%\n  \n  \n    gambling\n    8.3\n    9.3\n    5.9\n    6.0\n  \n  \n    reading\n    4.2\n    2.1\n    1.0\n    1.1\n  \n  \n    TV/music\n    44.9\n    56.6\n    15.3\n    14.9\n  \n  \n    Out-door\n    9.8%\n    11.7%\n    49.2%\n    53.6%\n  \n  \n    sports/picnic\n    1.1%\n    1.6%\n    17.8%\n    19.0%\n  \n  \n    shopping/movie\n    7.8\n    9.0\n    27.7\n    31.0\n  \n  \n    dancing\n    0.2\n    0.3\n    0.2\n    0.2\n  \n  \n    social visits\n    0.7\n    0.8\n    3.5\n    3.3\n  \n  \n    Others\n    16.8%\n    2.9%\n    18.3%\n    6.5%\n  \n  \n    Total\n    99.9%\n    100.0%\n    100.0%\n    100.0%\n  \n  \n    \n    (552)*\n    (378)*\n    (574)*\n    (368)*\n  \n  \n    *Total number of indicated leisure activities.\n  \n\nTable 5 Most Frequently Patronized Facilities and Services\n\n  \n    Facilities & Services\n    Within Estate\n    Outside Estate\n    Total\n    No Response\n  \n  \n    Daily Necessities\n    77.9%\n    22.1\n    100.0% (420)\n    (0)\n  \n  \n    Shopping\n    43.9%\n    56.1\n    100.0% (371)\n    (49)\n  \n  \n    Medical Services\n    61.7%\n    38.3\n    100.0% (386)\n    (34)\n  \n  \n    Tea-house\n    83.0%\n    17.0\n    100.0% (376)\n    (44)\n  \n\nThe twelve-block estate is complete with an entire range of shopping and recreational facilities: a commercial complex containing over 100 shops, four kiosks, three banks, two large Chinese restaurants, a department store and an exhibition hall. Besides, the estate also provides 12 food-stalls and 86 shop-stalls. In many respects Oi-Man approximates a well-planned self-contained estate. For the majority of its 36,000 residents the move to Oi-Man has meant improvement in almost all aspects of living environment (Table 6).",
        "txt_file_path": "txt/dfo323lmgvd/RAS-1981.txt",
        "external_url": "https://digitalrepository.lib.hku.hk/catalog/ff36bt18m",
        "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
    }
]