[ { "id": 205722, "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-1969", "page_number": 28, "title": "RAS-1969", "content_text": "22 \n\nT. C. CHENG \n\nIn May 1915, Japan forced the Republic of China, then under the premiership of Yuan Shih-kai, to accept the \"Twenty-one Demands\". Four years later, in 1919, the Chinese delegation failed at the Peace Conference in Paris to prevent the \"transfer\" of Germany's \"rights and privileges\" in the Shantung Province to Japan. As a result of this complete disregard of China's sovereignty by the foreign powers, thousands of students took part in processions demonstrating against foreign militarism and oppression in China on 4 May 1919. In response, students, merchants, and workers throughout China also staged demonstrations and strikes, thereby sparking off in China the \"May 4 Movement\". Chinese national feelings were also stirred by the Nationalist Party, the Kuomintang (or K.M.T.), who now pressed for the abolition of extra-territorial rights and unequal treaties and the retrocession of foreign concessions. All these had serious repercussions in Hong Kong, and in 1922 the first of a series of seamen's strikes began. On 30th May 1925, certain Chinese demonstrators were shot and killed by British policemen in the International Settlements in Shanghai. This led to more serious strikes and demonstrations in Shanghai, Canton, and Hong Kong, culminating in an economic boycott which paralysed Hong Kong.\n\nDuring this period, the Chinese unofficials, viz., Chow Shou-son, Ng Hon-tsz (who died in May 1923) and Robert Kotewall (who succeeded Ng Hon-tsz), and other prominent Chinese leaders, including Sir Robert Hotung and the directors of Tung Wah Hospital, stood solidly by the Government. Some of them actually acted as unofficial middlemen in negotiations between Hong Kong and the seamen's representatives in Canton. The services rendered by Chow Shou-son and Robert Kotewall during this crisis were so valuable and outstanding that speedy recognition was accorded to them. In 1926, Chow was created a knight. Kotewall was given the honorary degree of LL.D. by the University of Hong Kong, and the following year was awarded the C.M.G.\n\nIt may be of interest to quote here the Governor Sir Cecil Clementi's remarks made in early 1926 at a Legislative Council meeting about the big strike of 1925 and the boycott that followed: \"We are determined to give full protection to the people of Hong Kong, and to put down with a firm hand any conspiracy to intimidate or otherwise to cause trouble among labourers and", "txt_file_path": "txt/dfo323lmgvd/RAS-1969.txt", "external_url": "https://digitalrepository.lib.hku.hk/catalog/9g553n20d", "rank": 0 }, { "id": 206314, "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": 131, "title": "RAS-1971", "content_text": "The District Watch Committee\n\n125\n\nChinese Affairs, spent most of its time in session discussing social and economic problems. In 1913, for example, among subjects discussed at its deliberations were the regulation of Chinese theatres, the prohibition of the circulation of foreign notes and silver, and means for the more effective regulation of Chinese householders; in 1914 the prohibition of all new Chinese restaurants in the Central District, the licensing of singing girls, and the classification of boarding houses (emigration houses and hotels); and in 1915 the restriction on the numbers of clubs and societies, the appointment of midwives, the question of payment of wine and spirit licenses, and the question of new legislation for money loan associations33. It is not surprising, then, that the Secretary for Chinese Affairs was pleased to write in 1918 that 'the loyal advice and assistance of this important Committee (which deals with every kind of question affecting the Chinese community) continues to be of the greatest value to Government'. The stabilising role of the Committee is also made clear by its activity during periods of intense crisis in the Colony. Thus the Committee was extremely active during the period of ebullition following from the 1911 Revolution in China; it also helped to prevent violence during the short time when diplomatic relations between China and Japan were strained in 1915; it played a part in bringing to an end the bitter seamen's strike of 1922 and the strike and boycott of 1925-192634. It was a Committee, as Lockhart probably intuited it would become, that allowed the Chinese to 'regulate' themselves within the fairly broad limits set by government,\n\nThe committees of the Tung Wah Hospital, the Po Leung Kuk, the District Watch Force, together with those of some other associations such as the Lok Sin Tong and the Chung Sing Benevolent Society35, formed a system. The system was, in terms, of prestige, influence and power, an hierarchical one. The Tung Wah Board of Directors was usually recruited from ex-committeemen of the Po Leung Kuk; and the District Watch Committee always contained a very large number of former members of the Po Leung Kuk and the Tung Wah Hospital. The District Watch Committee thus formed the apex of a pyramidal and hierarchical structure, at the base of which were local-based associations such as Kaifong, and also district and clansmen associations, and guilds of employers36. But the prestige", "txt_file_path": "txt/dfo323lmgvd/RAS-1971.txt", "external_url": "https://digitalrepository.lib.hku.hk/catalog/z029vt43g", "rank": 0 }, { "id": 206358, "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": 175, "title": "RAS-1971", "content_text": "HISTORY OF MILITARY VOLUNTEERS IN H.K.\n\n159\n\npay certain sums into the Corps Funds. These variations to the old Ordinance are important as no fixed period under penalty had been enjoined in it, and no special duties other than active military service had been envisaged for the force.\n\nThe reasons for these changes must again be sought in the changing nature of the times. The educated youth and the industrial labour of China had entered into a period of unrest and discontent brought about by their country's weakness. China had entered the war as an ally of the Western powers in 1917 but despite this they refused to give up tariff privileges and treaty ports (the European concessions) or to make their other Eastern ally, Japan, relinquish her territorial encroachments on China. The 1920s were a time of growing internal strife in China coupled with increased resentment of the West. Hong Kong was not excluded from the impact of ideological struggle. The Seaman's Strike of 1922 and the General Strike of 1925-26 crippled the port and damaged the economy of the Colony. An emergency situation existed, and thus a fresh impetus was given to the Volunteer Corps whose services were again needed for humdrum but essential work. Colonel H. Owen Hughes recalls being called out for six weeks in 1925, and combining office work by day with duty by night patrolling the streets and guarding hospitals and vulnerable points.20 Whoever decided that a new Ordinance was needed in 1920 was a man of prescience and discernment. Other amendments were made to the Volunteer Ordinance in 1926 and 1927 (No. 15 of 1926 and No. 27 of 1927) in the light of contemporary requirements.\n\nBy the late thirties hostilities were again threatening in Western Europe and Japan's gradual encroachments in China led to actual war in 1937 and the occupation of Canton the following year. The danger which these events might bring to Hong Kong had already been anticipated. The Corps grew in size during this period and the Year Books between 1934 and 1940 make interesting reading. In the first issues we see that, following the Ordinance of 1933, the Volunteer Defence Corps consisted of one battery of artillery, a machine gun battalion that included three machine gun companies, corps infantry (largely Portuguese) and corps engineers and signals and armoured cars with a reserve company.\n\n20 Vol, 1964, p. 42.", "txt_file_path": "txt/dfo323lmgvd/RAS-1971.txt", "external_url": "https://digitalrepository.lib.hku.hk/catalog/z029vt43g", "rank": 0 }, { "id": 209202, "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": 105, "title": "RAS-1981", "content_text": "# THE CHINESE CHURCH, LABOUR AND ELITES AND THE MUI TSAI QUESTION IN THE 1920'S\n\n## CARL T. SMITH\n\n### Introduction\n\nThe events leading up to the passage by the Legislative Council of Hong Kong of Ordinance No. 1 of 1923, entitled, “An Ordinance to Regulate Certain Forms of Domestic Service\" interested me as an historian of the Hong Kong Protestant Church. It was the first time Chinese Christians in Hong Kong had worked as a group on a social question. Previously individual Christians had written or spoken about public issues, but the organisation of the Anti Mui Tsai Society in 1921 was the first major effort of a large body of Chinese Christians to campaign for social change. Of added interest was the enlistment of the labour unions to support its efforts and the active part women took in the campaign.\n\nDr. Sun Yat-sen in planning the Revolution of 1911 had received the support of secret societies and other groups whose members were from the labouring class. After the revolution some of these elements began to organise as modern labour unions. In the 1920's their desire to express themselves, gain benefits and be recognised as a political force was strengthened by the success of the Russian revolution. Communist organisers were particularly active in Canton. In February-March 1922, the Seamen's Union conducted a successful strike in Hong Kong.\n\nAt the same time that labour was asserting itself, there were efforts by women to change their traditional status in Chinese society. One of the features of the fight against the practice of buying domestic servants was the support given by the Chinese members of the recently organised YWCA under the leadership of Mrs. Ma Ying-piu. The mui tsai question involved the misuse of young girls and the conduct of their mistresses. It was to be expected, therefore, it would attract the concern of enlightened women. Other than the organisation of the wives of the Directors of the Po Leung Kuk (Society for the Protection of Women and Girls) as a committee to visit the Society's Home and check on its management, there was no active participation by women on the side of those who wished to preserve the system.\n\n### I\n\nPage 105\nPage 106", "txt_file_path": "txt/dfo323lmgvd/RAS-1981.txt", "external_url": "https://digitalrepository.lib.hku.hk/catalog/ff36bt18m", "rank": 0 }, { "id": 209216, "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": 119, "title": "RAS-1981", "content_text": "THE CHINESE CHURCH, LABOUR AND ELITES AND THE MUI TSAI QUESTION IN THE 1920's 105\n\nChamber of Commerce, Secretary of Chamber for many years. Managing Director of Kwong Man Loong Firecracker Co. Tse Ka-po, also known as Simon Tse Yan (\n\n—\n\n1966), son of compradore of Banco Ultramarino, Macao. Established Po Kee Shipping Co. Compradore for Nippon Yusen Kaisha. A Roman Catholic. Son-in-law of Mr. Ho Kom-tong, a brother of Sir Robert Ho Tung.\n\nWong Ping-suen (1873 - 1942), member of a wealthy land-owning, merchant-compradore Hong Kong family. Compradore of Mackintosh, Mackenzie and Co., and P. & O. Steamship Co. Tong Shau Shan, manager of the San Tak Hing Lok firm on Des Voeux Road.\n\nAfter much hedging for a number of years, the Colonial Office determined to push the Hong Kong Government into drafting a bill for the abolition of the mui tsai system. The concerted efforts of concerned groups in England and the Anti Mui Tsai Society in Hong Kong were producing results. The Secretary of State minuted a despatch on March 21, 1922 instructing his under secretary that in writing to the Governor of Hong Kong, “A fairly full answer should be drafted explaining the difficulties, but making it clear that the abolition is going to be carried into effect. There is to be no nonsense about it and no sham. One year would be a reasonable time to allow”.\n\n10\n\nThe Governor was not happy with these instructions, particularly after the Chinese he depended on for advice raised strong objections to passage of the Bill. He felt himself threatened. The Colonial Office had not been altogether satisfied with his handling of the Seamen's strike earlier in the year, and now it appeared they were repudiating the position he had promoted that it was not wise to radically change the mui tsai system. The best policy, in his opinion, was to advocate the correction of certain abuses and this could well be left in the hands of the elite Chinese establishment in Hong Kong.\n\nGovernor Stubbs took a very serious view of the implications of the opposition to the Ordinance. In a letter to a Colonial Office official in September 1922, while on leave, he said:\n\nIt means that the Chinese for the first time are setting themselves against the Government. That is the beginning of the end. I told you the other day I believed we should hold Hong Kong for another fifty. I put it now at twenty at the most.", "txt_file_path": "txt/dfo323lmgvd/RAS-1981.txt", "external_url": "https://digitalrepository.lib.hku.hk/catalog/ff36bt18m", "rank": 0 }, { "id": 209220, "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": 123, "title": "RAS-1981", "content_text": "THE CHINESE CHURCH, LABOUR AND ELITES AND THE MUI TSAJ QUESTION IN THE 1920'S 109\n\nthe YWCA, the Seamen's Union and a large representation from other unions. The unions were again expressing themselves after the 1921 seamen's strike.\n\nTwenty speakers secured the floor to present their views. All but three were in favour of the Bill. One of the speakers in favour was Mrs. Ma Ying-piu, representing the YWCA. For a woman to address a mixed public meeting of Chinese was an unusual event in conservative Hong Kong.\n\nAs soon as the meeting opened under the Chairmanship of Mr. Lo Chung-kiu, the Chairman of the Tung Wah Hospital Directors, there were signs the meeting might not be as smooth as its organizers had planned. A question of procedure was raised regarding the Chairmanship: why should not the meeting elect its own Chairman as it had been convened by the Kai Fong and not by Tung Wah? The Chairman replied it was invariably the practice for Tung Wah to appoint the Chairman for meetings held on its premises. The matter was not pushed.\n\nThen began a succession of speakers supporting the Bill. Their remarks were frequently punctuated by applause initiated by the large section representing the Seamen's Union. They particularly acclaimed the speech of Mrs. Ma. She put forth the thesis that it was women who were principally responsible for the system. They did most of the buying and selling and were responsible for the mistreatment of the girls.\n\nMr. M. K. Lo spoke in favour of the Bill. Although the Hon. Mr. Chow Shou-son and Mr. T. N. Chau were present, they remained silent.\n\nA speaker from the YMCA attacked the rich, instructing them that they should use their wealth to develop industry to provide employment for the poor instead of selfishly hoarding their wealth and using labour in their homes they need not give wages to.\n\nThings began to get out of order when a speaker against the Bill asked why everything was being done for women when men coolies were being sold daily. Voices were raised demanding the Chairman rule the speaker out of order. But he was allowed to continue though he could hardly be heard above the uproar of protests. He eventually had to stop. At this point there was a stamping of feet and repeated cries of \"vote\".", "txt_file_path": "txt/dfo323lmgvd/RAS-1981.txt", "external_url": "https://digitalrepository.lib.hku.hk/catalog/ff36bt18m", "rank": 0 }, { "id": 209267, "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": 170, "title": "RAS-1981", "content_text": "156\n\nWEI PEH-T'I\n\nand handed Terranova to the Chinese magistrate.36\n\nThe facts that emerged during the trial, different from the earlier version that the foreigners had already accepted, left Juan Yulan somewhat \"puzzled\".37 This later version, as reported by Morse, is as follows:\n\nThe jar which is said to be the instrument that caused the death of the woman was safely delivered by the accused (Terranova) into her hand, and that she fell overboard at the distance of thirty feet and upwards from the ship Emily, that she was seen from on board of the Hero of Malown, an English ship laying near the Emily, and fell overboard while in the act of sculling her Boat, that no Jar or any such instrument was thrown at her, or caused her falling into the Water, that from the relative situation of the boat and the ship it was impossible to strike the woman on the side of the head in which the wound was inflicted,\n\n38\n\nThe British thought that the Americans should not have yielded. The Americans had \"abandoned a man serving under their flag to the sanguinary laws of this Empire without an endeavour to obtain common justice for him\".39 Perhaps the eventual surrender of Terranova to the Chinese gave further credence to the Chinese version of the facts as far as Juan Yuan was concerned. Nevertheless, the underlying reason for this surrender remained the fear that unless the seaman was given up, the Chinese authorities might search the ship and discover opium.\n\nBy the time Juan Yuan arrived at Canton, the Chinese had already known opium for more than a thousand years, and, for nearly a century, an official policy had been adopted prohibiting its domestic sale and use. The first opium-producing poppy was brought into China by Arab and Turkish traders some time during the seventh or eighth century, to be used as medicine.40 In the 1660s, the smoking of opium, mixed with tobacco, was introduced into the coastal provinces of Fukien and Kwangtung from Taiwan. By the eighteenth century, the Chinese had devised their own method of opium consumption, by having the smoker reclining on a couch, burning the opium extract over a lamp, and inhaling it through a pipe. The use of this definitely addictive substance became so widespread that as early as 1729 domestic sale and consumption of opium was forbidden by an imperial edict. In 1796, the Chia-ch'ing Emperor prohibited the importation and domestic cultivation of the poppy as well. Since then, all opium used in China was brought in through illicit smuggling. Whereas American ships brought", "txt_file_path": "txt/dfo323lmgvd/RAS-1981.txt", "external_url": "https://digitalrepository.lib.hku.hk/catalog/ff36bt18m", "rank": 0 }, { "id": 214391, "series_id": 26, "series_slug": "histsyn-rashkb-journal-engine", "series_title": "RASHKB Journal 皇家亞洲學會香港分會學刊", "series_use_hku_proxy": false, "document_key": "RAS-1998", "page_number": 249, "title": "RAS-1998", "content_text": "215\n\nthy Murphy was seconded from the Police to take charge of the twenty-three detectives in the District Watch Force. The official report of the Secretary for Chinese Affairs for that year enthusiastically noted that 'His work at once had the effect of inspiring the men to greater energy and of fostering co-operation with the Regular detectives' and 'A marked improvement in this department may confidently be expected under the new system.' In 1919 Sergeant Murphy, a Cantonese speaker, had sixteen years experience in the Hong Kong Police. The following year Murphy was promoted to sub-Inspector but despite his promotion he remained with the District Watch Force until January 1922 by which time he had attained the rank of Inspector. Of course detectives had existed in the District Watch Force before 1918. As early as 1894 a single detective appeared in the Registrar General's Annual Report. In 1910 the annual bill for allowances to 'Chief District Watchmen and detectives' amounted to $514 but it was not until 1911 that detectives' wages were listed as a separate item amounting to $1,212.\n\nTroubled Times\n\nIn 1922 the colony reeled from the disruption caused by a massive seamen's strike which spread to involve Chinese men and women in other occupations including the Governor's own domestic servants. The Governor, Sir Reginald Stubbs, commissioned Mr A.G.M. Fletcher, CBE, to investigate the background of the strike and to determine why the intimidation tactics of the strikers had been so successful. The resulting report together with a long covering letter from the Governor were forwarded to the Secretary of State in mid-March 1922. Stubbs was highly critical of the leading members of the Chinese community including members of the District Watch Committee who, he claimed, had not been of the 'slightest use' in either 'calming the fears of the ignorant populace' or obtaining information which would have enabled the Government to deal with intimidation. It was Stubbs' opinion that the information departments of both the Police and the Secretary for Chinese Affairs should be 'drastically reorganized.'20 Fletcher had harsh words for the District Watchmen and considered them to be 'entirely useless' when it came to collecting information about the causes of intimidation since the Watchmen 'must have had the amplest evidence available.' Whilst agreeing with Fletcher in principle, Stubbs downplayed the deficiencies of the Watchmen citing their lowly status as a probable reason for their poor performance. Given the critical tone", "txt_file_path": "txt/dfo323lmgvd/RAS-1998.txt", "external_url": "https://digitalrepository.lib.hku.hk/catalog/1g05n0794", "rank": 0 }, { "id": 214393, "series_id": 26, "series_slug": "histsyn-rashkb-journal-engine", "series_title": "RASHKB Journal 皇家亞洲學會香港分會學刊", "series_use_hku_proxy": false, "document_key": "RAS-1998", "page_number": 251, "title": "RAS-1998", "content_text": "Closer Liaison with the Hong Kong Government \n\n217 \n\nIn the early 1920s, due ostensibly to the increase in population and rapid development of the colony, it was decided to increase the number of District Watchmen and also develop closer liaison with the regular police. During 1924 an additional twenty men were added to the establishment of the District Watch Force bringing it to 122. At the same time a police sergeant was detached from normal police work and placed in charge of the 'regular duties and non-detective members of the Force.' With the benefit of hindsight it is not unreasonable to suggest that the decision to develop more formal contact with the regular Police was due, at least in part, to decisions at the highest level to regulate the District Watch Force following the criticisms associated with its performance during the seaman's strike. However, despite this closer association with the Hong Kong Police, the official reports of the Secretary for Chinese Affairs continued to stress that the essential character of the District Watch Force had in no way been sacrificed.' A police officer of inspectorate rank continued to be in charge of the detective branch of the Force and continuity was achieved by having the same inspector as liaison officer. Still closer association with the regular Police Force occurred around 1922 when the District Watchmen started attending the Police Training School and were also armed. Since 1889 there had existed special provision under successive Arms and Ammunition ordinances for District Watchmen to be exempt from requiring licences in the same way as the Police and the Military. During 1925 some additional changes occurred within the Force with particular reference to their employment in Kowloon. Work commenced on new quarters in Yaumati at an estimated total cost of $25,000 and the Chinese shopkeepers in Yaumati and Mongkok were asked to contribute to the funds of the Force in the same way as their opposite numbers on Hong Kong island. This amounted to 1% of the rental and raised a total of $2,500 during the last three months of 1925. The image of the Force was the subject of discussion during early 1925 and its own members petitioned the Committee for a change in the 'archaic nature of the uniform' which the Watchmen believed was an impediment to younger men joining the Force. The fact that this petition was shelved until the return of the permanent Chairman illustrates the ultra-conservative nature of the Committee and, whilst the detective branch was praised in official reports, the Secretary for Chinese Affairs considered that 'the uniformed branch left much to be desired.' In the 1926 departmental...", "txt_file_path": "txt/dfo323lmgvd/RAS-1998.txt", "external_url": "https://digitalrepository.lib.hku.hk/catalog/1g05n0794", "rank": 0 } ]