In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:

3 The Origins of Policy, 1917–30 The 1920s saw increasing pressures for social change in Hong Kong. These pushed and nudged government towards increasing its reach by adopting new legislation. This was not change led or embraced wholeheartedly by a progressive government; rather, it was change taken hesitantly by a sometimes reluctant one. Tentative initial steps brought slow and, at times, unsteady change. Change did not happen in isolation. Hong Kong’s society and economy continued to grow and develop. Its population increased from 625,000 in 1921 to 850,000 in 1931.1 This influx occurred against a backdrop of political instability and uncertainty in China after the 1911 revolution; the Japanese demands made on China; the growth of anti-imperialist sentiment in China; the rise of the Kuomintang (KMT) and the beginnings of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP). Large influxes of refugees from China were often the result and that put an enormous strain on Hong Kong’s resources, not least on the availability and affordability of housing. This led to the imposition of rent controls and a commission of enquiry into housing which did not result in any concrete action. Other external factors were the rise of Britain’s obligations through membership of the League of Nations and the International Labour Organisation which exerted pressure to introduce social legislation. There was the growing influence of changing social expectations in Britain, for example, the protection of women and children, reflected in the election of two Labour governments and the involvement of what are now called non-government organizations (NGOs). Partly as a result of these changes, the Secretary of State and the Colonial Office now dispensed more advice and instruction to colonies on new areas of government activity. By 1920, the structures established by Lockhart for maintaining contact with the local Chinese population through the elites had been in place for nearly thirty years. The senior cadets of this period 28 Governors, Politics and the Colonial Office had joined shortly after this system had been established, had grown up with it and had made it an integral part of the governmental system. It had not been designed, however, to cope with the pressures for social change that were developing from the 1920s. During this period, the Hong Kong government usually did not have its own distinct policies. It tended to react to pressures for change rather than initiate change. What influenced the Hong Kong government to change? If it did not instigate change, why did it take action? What was the Secretary of State’s and the Colonial Office’s role? What did the adoption of new policies say about the development of the Hong Kong government’s autonomy? These questions will be examined through a review of the passage of legislation to regulate employment of children; why it imposed rent controls in the private housing market; and how and why legislation to control and regulate mui tsai was established but not brought into effect. It does not seek to generalise; not every case can be examined here—to do so would warrant a separate book. It does, however, seek to provide a detailed insight of what did happen in these cases and sets out a framework which can be used to examine other cases of this period. Employment of children Hong Kong’s Sanitary Board was considered to be a rather dull, uninteresting and, by implication, a rather ineffective sort of sort of body.2 In 1919 it was the vehicle through which pressure for legislation to regulate the employment of children in factories and workshops was brought to bear upon government in both Hong Kong and Britain. The Sanitary Board had been established in 1883 as a result of the Chadwick Report into Hong Kong’s sanitary conditions. It initially had direct responsibility for the drafting of public health by-laws and for supervision of the Sanitary Department staff. In 1903, the Principal Medical Officer of Health became the Board’s President, directly responsible to the Governor for the operation of the Sanitary Department. In 1908, after investigation into the department’s workings, a cadet officer became President and Head of the Department. The Board then consisted of four official members and six unofficial members, four appointed by the Governor and two elected by those whose names appeared on the Jury List.3 In 1919, the Colonial Veterinary Surgeon, Adam Gibson4 was President of the Sanitary Board, a post he had held since May 1918...

Share