[ { "id": 209508, "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": 165, "title": "RAS-1982", "content_text": "Shatou near Shumchun. Mr. Tang can speak SC, but his pronunciation is recognizable as non-native. In this, he differs from his father, who in his lifetime knew only the local dialect, and from his son, who is more fluent in SC than in KHW; even more so from his grandson, a child of 3 who, although he is being raised in KHW and understands the dialect, is acquiring SC.\n\nThe data consist primarily of the reading pronunciations of about 430 Chinese characters, for the most part those listed in the first pages of the Fangyan Diaocha Zibiao, a questionnaire commonly used in surveys on Chinese dialects. The characters in these lists are chosen so as to allow a quick characterization of the main phonological features of a Chinese dialect. Additional reading pronunciations were collected, as well as a few lexical items and samples of spoken dialect. The phonetic transcriptions were checked out for consistency with the informant, especially with respect to finals and tones.\n\nIt might be argued that reading pronunciations serve the purpose of reading aloud texts in classical Chinese, and do not necessarily coincide with the colloquial. However, the spoken forms within the data, and a short exposure to the dialect outside working sessions convinced me that the same phonological system underlies the reading pronunciations and the colloquial. In a few cases, a difference was found between reading and spoken forms. Such cases seem restricted to a phonologically well-defined category of words which show similar double readings in SC. There are undoubtedly a number of theoretical readings within the data, as a reading was obtained for each character, however unlikely to occur in spoken KHW. Still, no effort was made to find out which readings were theoretical, as phonology was the only concern of this survey.\n\nIn the following pages, the Meyer-Wempe (MW) system of romanisation will be used for transcribing SC sounds, and a system close to the International Phonetic Alphabet will be used for transcribing KHW sounds. An asterisk precedes reconstructed forms.\n\nPage 165\n\nPage 166", "txt_file_path": "txt/dfo323lmgvd/RAS-1982.txt", "external_url": "https://digitalrepository.lib.hku.hk/catalog/mk61z420p", "rank": 0 }, { "id": 210997, "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-1987", "page_number": 59, "title": "RAS-1987", "content_text": "34\n\nAt the head of the pier was the Lung-chin Pavilion which provided shelter for travellers. It was also known as the “Mandarin-Greeting Pavilion” (ying-kuan t’ing), for it was presumably here that officials landing at Kowloon were officially greeted before they proceeded to the Walled City.21\n\nIronically, the first invaders of the Walled City were not British, but Chinese. In 1854, certain anti-Dynastic elements in Hong Kong, taking advantage of the general disturbance caused by the T'ai-p'ing uprising, attacked the Walled City across the harbour and occupied it. According to British officials, they were mainly Hakka stone workers and Triad members. Though the rebels had promised the inhabitants protection if they withdrew their support from the Imperial forces, as soon as they took possession of the City, they ransacked the houses and seized pigs, poultry and dogs for food.\n\nThe Kowloon officials fled to Hong Kong Island. At one point, nine war junks carrying 2,000 Imperial soldiers were ready to confront an equal number of rebel naval forces. The British in fact held the ring by ordering all warships to leave Hong Kong waters and so averted a major naval battle. The Imperial troops finally prevailed.22 However, the hsun-chien's official residence in the Walled City was so damaged by fire that for a while, he was obliged to move to Ch'ih-wei on the Shumchun river.23\n\nChinese officials at Kowloon and British officials in Hong Kong kept in close touch and generally co-operated in maintaining law and order in the vicinity. In 1867 for instance, when conflict broke out between villagers from either side of the border, Governor Macdonnell made a special trip to Kowloon, met the Chinese official on his steamer and agreed to co-operate in keeping peace.24 In 1884, Kowloon officials warned the Hong Kong authorities of a possible rising of the Triad Society.25\n\n24\n\n26\n\nUnder Ordinance 2 of 1850, Chinese fugitives in Hong Kong were handed over to Kowloon officials, but the provision was not reciprocal — China had no obligation to extradite criminals to Hong Kong. Chinese authorities, however, did arrest and convict them. The Namoa case was the most dramatic example. In 1890,", "txt_file_path": "txt/dfo323lmgvd/RAS-1987.txt", "external_url": "https://digitalrepository.lib.hku.hk/catalog/rx919b522", "rank": 0 }, { "id": 210999, "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-1987", "page_number": 61, "title": "RAS-1987", "content_text": "35 \n\nKong except for a short interval between 1867 and 1871, was a major attraction of Kowloon City.” Gambling houses fronting the beach offered free launch services and carried on a thriving business. This caused so much consternation in Hong Kong that, after a series of stunning embezzlement cases and a connection with the gambling \"hells” of Kowloon had been established, the Hong Kong government passed an ordinance making it an offence for civil servants to visit Kowloon for the purpose of gambling. Under pressure from the Hong Kong government in the late 1890s, Chinese officials actually suppressed gambling. Ironically, it was under “British rule” in the twentieth century that gambling was re-introduced. But it was only after the Second World War, when Hong Kong prohibited brothels and opium that the Walled City was transformed into the squalid enclave of vice for which it later became notorious.\n\n36 \n\nThe City had other attractions. Both the Walled City and the fort had been frequently visited by foreigners since the 1850s. It was the terminal point of several interesting walks on the mainland popular with European residents. They were not required to produce passes or go through other kinds of formalities normally required in a garrison town. Often at the end of an excursion, visitors took a quick walk around the wall, snapped a few pictures of \"this curious and particularly dirty town\", and left for the Island by launch from the Lung-chin jetty.\n\nThe great change came in 1899. In the previous year, the Convention of Peking had been signed between China and Britain leasing territory south of the Shumchun river to Britain. However, in face of strong Chinese insistence on retaining jurisdiction in the Kowloon Walled City, the British agreed to include a clause that \"within the city of Kowloon the Chinese officials now stationed there shall continue to exercise jurisdiction except so far as may be inconsistent with the military requirement to the defence of Hong Kong.\" This reservation of Chinese jurisdiction upset many sectors of British interest, not least of all, foreign residents in Hong Kong, all seeing this Chinese enclave in the midst of a British administered territory a security risk.\n\nThe matter came to a head in 1899. The Hong Kong govern-", "txt_file_path": "txt/dfo323lmgvd/RAS-1987.txt", "external_url": "https://digitalrepository.lib.hku.hk/catalog/rx919b522", "rank": 0 }, { "id": 211000, "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-1987", "page_number": 62, "title": "RAS-1987", "content_text": "37\n\nment, when attempting in April to occupy the New Territory (as the New Territories were then called), encountered much more ferocious resistance than anticipated. At this juncture, 600 men were sent into the Kowloon Walled City by the Governor-General of Kwangtung and Kwangsi, and the British authorities, convinced that they were there to support the resistance, demanded their withdrawal. The Colonial Office went so far as to threaten starving out the garrison at the City until troops were removed.41 The Chinese, however, claimed that the troops had been sent by special request of the Hong Kong government to preserve order, and though some of the men were withdrawn, by 4th May, 200 were still stationed in the City.42\n\nThis prompted the British to take action to attack Shumchun and Kowloon City as punishment for the Governor-General's duplicity in abetting the local resistance. On 16th May, at 3:00 p.m., a force of 300 men consisting of Royal Welsh Fusiliers and 100 Hong Kong Volunteers proceeded to Kowloon and occupied it, apparently meeting little resistance.43 All Chinese civil and military officials were ordered to depart as the British claimed that their continued presence and the retention of Kowloon Walled City in Chinese hands had proven inconsistent to British military requirement. To “legalize” the situation, an Order-in-Council was issued in December, announcing British jurisdiction over the Walled City which was to be administered in the same manner as the rest of the Colony.44 Yet this remained a unilateral revision of the Convention which the Chinese government never recognized.\n\n44\n\n45\n\n46\n\nThe Chinese naturally responded bitterly to the development. T'an Chung-lin, the Governor-General, protested vehemently to the court of the undignified manner in which the military officers and soldiers were cast out.45 At Peking, the Tsungli Yamen complained to the British Minister.46 Chinese eagerness to recover jurisdiction at Kowloon is best revealed in the letters from Lo Feng-lu****, Chinese Minister at St. James, to the Foreign Office.Yet, paradoxically, this eagerness was not accompanied by action; no attempt was made by the Chinese to reinstate an administration in the Walled City.", "txt_file_path": "txt/dfo323lmgvd/RAS-1987.txt", "external_url": "https://digitalrepository.lib.hku.hk/catalog/rx919b522", "rank": 0 }, { "id": 211119, "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-1987", "page_number": 180, "title": "RAS-1987", "content_text": "155\n\nlegal system. This, the memorial claimed, China did not have.\n\nIt was for this reason that foreign nations had demanded extra-territorial rights. By insisting on this protection for their subjects in China, the Treaty Powers showed, it was affirmed, that “in one most important particular they consider it (China) outside the pale of modern civilisation.”\n\nThe foreigners easily recognised that the Chinese legal system was different from theirs, but they did not appreciate the traditional values and procedures it embodied. These had enabled China to survive as a united nation for more than a millennium.\n\nOn the other hand, the administration of the law in Hongkong was sometimes arbitrary and unfair. There was special legislation affecting the Chinese only; and an examination of nineteenth century court cases leads me to conclude that it often did not properly ensure the life, liberty and property of the Chinese who were under its jurisdiction.\n\nNor was every European in that day convinced that the Chinese received fair treatment in Hongkong. In 1863 a traveller, probably a missionary, reported the following incident at a village near Shumchun just beyond the present border:\n\nA Chinese, when he saw the stranger, took off his coat and showed his back to the assembled villagers. It bore the marks of a severe flogging. The victim called upon all to observe \"how the foreign devils in Hongkong treat a respectable Chinese.”\n\nThe traveller was sympathetic. He observed: \"I strongly disapprove of the way such punishments are carried out by the police. It used to be a most horrid spectacle to see, as often one might have done, a poor wretch, with his back all raw and bloody, exposed in Queen's Road, trembling with pain, shame and cold.\"\n\nHe thought it was natural for the Chinese to bitterly resent such treatment, especially those who \"had suffered unjustly, or from some trivial offence such as three hairs from a horse's tail, for which I have known flogging with a rattan afflicted.”\n\nPage 180\n\nPage 181", "txt_file_path": "txt/dfo323lmgvd/RAS-1987.txt", "external_url": "https://digitalrepository.lib.hku.hk/catalog/rx919b522", "rank": 0 } ]