[
    {
        "id": 206097,
        "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-1970",
        "page_number": 177,
        "title": "RAS-1970",
        "content_text": "172 \n\nS. F. BALFOUR \n\nDuarte Coelho, a captain who arrived at T'un Mun a little before Fernando d'Andrade, had had to fight no less than 35 engagements with local pirates, and his fleet was almost decimated by pirates while he was away in Canton. Besides pirates, they had to put up with a local boycott. The inhabitants had refused to help when their ships had been wrecked in a typhoon and gave them no provisions. It was natural that Simon Andrade decided to solve these problems by building a fort with forced labour and by making raids on the pirates' bases. The Chinese themselves recognised this, for one of the arguments that was put before the government for continuing trade negotiations was that the Portuguese were suppressing piracy at Lo Man Shan and other places. \n\nThe Chinese officials might in fact have tolerated the outrages committed by Simon Andrade if he and his companions had not designed to annex territory at T'un Mun and organise a trading colony under the Portuguese flag. The inscription with the arms of Portugal had been one of the signs of this intention; the fort Andrade built was another. The Chinese government, which had heretofore encouraged colonies of foreign traders, now felt that their liberality was being exploited. A Chinese text explains the situation as follows: \"Some time near the end of Ching Tê's reign (1506 to 1522) a people not recognised as tributary to China known as the Feringhis (1) together with a crowd of riff-raff filtered into the harbours between T'un Mun and Kwai Ch'ung and set up barracks and a fort, mounted many cannon to make war, captured islands, killed people, robbed ships and terrorised the population by their fierce dominion over the coast. Their ambition being to annex territory they made a survey and set up boundary stones and tried to administer the various other foreign traders within this area.\"28 \n\nIn this text Kwai Ch'ung must refer to a village of that name south-east of Tsün Wan and opposite Tsing I Island. The harbour between the mainland and Tsing I Island is one of the most sheltered in the whole region and must, I think, have been one of the main anchorages of the foreign ships. The place referred to as T'un Mun O is Castle Peak Bay itself and this was undoubtedly the place where the subsequent battle between the Portuguese and \n\n28 Chang T'ien-tse connects these boundary stones with the tablet bearing the Portuguese arms mentioned by Barros.",
        "txt_file_path": "txt/dfo323lmgvd/RAS-1970.txt",
        "external_url": "https://digitalrepository.lib.hku.hk/catalog/ww72j0241",
        "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": 209218,
        "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": 121,
        "title": "RAS-1981",
        "content_text": "THE CHINESE CHURCH, LABOUR AND ELITES AND THE MUI TSAI QUESTION IN THE 1920'S 107\n\nson-in-law of Ho Tung\n\nT. N. Chau, a barrister\n\nLi Wing-tin\n\nSimon Tse Yan, also known as Tse Ka Po\n\nFung Ping-shan, donor of the Fung Ping Shan Library building\n\nat Hong Kong University\n\nChau Yu-ting, a wealthy import-export merchant\n\nYung Tse-ming, compradore of the Chartered Bank\n\nHo Wing, son of Ho Fook, adopted son of Ho Tung and compradore of the Hong Kong and Shanghai Bank\n\nWong Ping-shuen, and\n\nIp Lan-chuen\n\nWong Ping-shuen advocated a slow approach, \"The time was not yet ripe for drastic action. Conditions in China had to be radically changed before it would serve any useful purpose to legislate on the question\".\n\nThe Secretary of the Chinese Chamber of Commerce, Mr. Ip Lan-chuen, contended that Hong Kong was too close to China to attempt abolition at this time.\n\nLi Po-kwai, the Chairman, vividly portrayed the dangers to the mui tsai if she were released from servitude at the age of eighteen. She would do \"mad and silly things\" which would lead to her downfall.\n\nChow Shou-son spoke out as \"being dead against the Bill\". If left alone the custom would die out in time as had the practice of foot-binding. After making his speech in Chinese, for some reason he shifted to English to conclude it, saying, “It is the opinion of the Chinese community and the Chinese people generally that the system should not be abolished”.\n\nMr. M. K. Lo interjected a moderating tone into the discussion when he reminded the meeting that it would have been better if the Chamber had expressed opposition to abolition sooner and more clearly, instead of keeping relatively silent until the Government had drafted and introduced a Bill.\n\nMr. Wong Kwong-tin objected to the Ordinance because it did not provide protection to the owners of mui tsai and was therefore grossly unfair. He gave a warning to the British Government they should be very careful in interfering with an old Chinese custom which had become an unwritten law.",
        "txt_file_path": "txt/dfo323lmgvd/RAS-1981.txt",
        "external_url": "https://digitalrepository.lib.hku.hk/catalog/ff36bt18m",
        "rank": 0
    },
    {
        "id": 214227,
        "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": 85,
        "title": "RAS-1998",
        "content_text": "48\n\nSpurr, Russell (1995), Excellency, the Governors of Hong Kong, FormAsia.\n\nStapleton, Kristin (1997), Interpreting Humour in History: Two Cases from Republican China, paper presented at 'Comparative and World History Seminar,' at John Hopkins University, USA, on 4 February 1997.\n\nSypher, Wylie (1956), Introduction and Appendix, Comedy, John Hopkins University Press.\n\nSyrett, Michel (1995, October 29), ‘Jest over the wall,' Agenda, South China Morning Post.\n\nTse, Sabrina (1997, November 14), 'What a laugh: being funny in Hong Kong,' Hong Kong Standard.\n\nVittachi, Nury (1995), The Hong Kong Joke Book, Chameleon/Hellman and Schoenberg.\n\n(1999, March, 27) letter to the author.\n\nWaters, Dan (1991), 21st Century Management; Keeping Ahead of the Japanese and Chinese, Prentice Hall/Simon and Schuster.\n\n(1995), Faces of Hong Kong an Old Hand's Reflections, Prentice Hall/Simon and Schuster.\n\nWelsford, Enid (1935), The Fool, His Social and Literary History, London.\n\nWu, Cynthia Hsin-feng, “If Triangles Were Circles...” A Study of Counterfactuals in Chinese and in English, Crane Publishing Co. Ltd., USA, undated but some time in 1990s.\n\nXu Jingxiang (1989) 200 Cartoons from China, China Today Press (China Reconstructs Press), Beijing.",
        "txt_file_path": "txt/dfo323lmgvd/RAS-1998.txt",
        "external_url": "https://digitalrepository.lib.hku.hk/catalog/1g05n0794",
        "rank": 0
    }
]