Category: Introducing Hong Kong History Research

This passage discusses the overlooked role of Hong Kong as a colonial entrepot in facilitating human mobility, trade, and refuge within the networks of the British Empire. While Hong Kong served as a transit port and refuge for various groups throughout history, the movement of Austrian and German-Jewish refugees during the Holocaust has often been neglected. Traditional narratives of Jewish refugee migration have focused on European and Western destinations, with Shanghai being mentioned as the primary port of refuge in Asia. However, recent scholarship adopting a Global Holocaust perspective has expanded the understanding of Jewish exile and the impact of the Nazi genocidal project worldwide. The author aims to elevate Hong Kong’s significance as another site within this broader landscape and examine the marginalized relationship between Hong Kong and the Holocaust.

As the avenues of escape began to close for Jews in Nazi Germany, one destination remained open: Shanghai. In the historiography about Jewish emigration to East Asia, Shanghai occupies the pedestal of being the only place in the world that did not have immigration barriers. This unique status came from the city’s position as a site of European semi-colonialisms: in addition to Chinese jurisdiction, parts of the city was divided between the French Concession and the International Settlement.

Many of the movement of Jewish refuge through Hong Kong was no secret. One South China Morning Post article published on December 19, 1938 painted a striking image: of the 538 German-Jewish refugees onboard the Conte Biancamano, few had any belongings besides their clothes, and fewer still had jobs lined up or spoke English. Most were families that included the elderly and young children. And many onboard were victims of the November Pogrom.

Hong Kong, as a British colony, had similar restrictions that regulated mobility as Britain did. Non-Chinese individuals seeking entry to Hong had to hold a valid passport or travel document accompanied with a valid entry visa. For most Jewish refugees, this was the major barrier that made Hong Kong inaccessible. However, the local Jewish Refugee Society, founded in response to the 1938 November pogroms, headed by Albert Raymond and other prominent members of Hong Kong’s Jewish community like Moses Talan and Lawrence Kadoorie, provided support by soliciting donations and offering temporary accommodations. They also obtained permission from the colonial authorities to allow refugees to enter the city during stopovers, providing a lifeline for some.

Jewish refugees who managed to secure entry visas often did so after arriving in Shanghai and obtaining a job in Hong Kong. Another option was family sponsorship visas, which was made possible by the government only after petitions from the Jewish Refugee Society. Yet few were able to breach Hong Kong’s ‘paper walls.’ The unfortunate reality was that for most Jewish refugees, their first and last encounter with Hong Kong occurred on the way to Shanghai.

For those Jewish refugees who found shelter in Hong Kong, a sense of normality briefly returned despite living in a foreign environment. However, the outbreak of World War II and the subsequent declaration of war by Britain against Nazi Germany on the morning of September 3 1939 changed everything. Governor Geoffrey Northcote and members of the Hong Kong Legislative Council followed in the response, placing Hong Kong under wartime rule. Immediately, Jewish refugees along with other German nationals, were considered “enemy aliens”, overnight, 99 male “enemy aliens” were sent to La Salle College in Kowloon for internment, but treated them with “respectable” European standards compared to those of Chinese refugees, for example they were initially allowed to hire Chinese staff to prepare meals, clean dishes, and do other chores. Although some internees were quickly released between late-September and early-October, they were required to carry pink identification cards, weekly check-ins at local police stations, and faced various restrictions on their activities, effectively turning Hong Kong into a colony-wide internment camp as they were forbidden to leave.

Eight months later, in the summer of 1940, Jewish refugees in Hong Kong faced expulsion due to fears of sabotage and fifth column activities following Nazi Germany’s rapid victories in Europe. However, the order of expulsion was retracted on the following day, June 7, the Hong Kong colonial government replaced it with a vague statement about a potential but undetermined action, causing uncertainty among the Jewish community. Eventually, the colonial authorities declared that those who did not leave by the new deadline of July 8 would not be assured separate internment from Nazi Germans and might not be interned in Hong Kong at all. With the possibility of finding refuge in Hong Kong eliminated, the Jewish Refugee Society and Lawrence Kadoorie collaborated with their counterparts in Shanghai to arrange for the remaining 60 Jewish refugees to leave Hong Kong by securing necessary documents. By the end of July 1940, all Jewish refugees, except for two families, had departed from Hong Kong.

The postwar period saw Hong Kong resume its function as a transit port – this time for Shanghai Jewish survivors eager to leave the city for home in Europe, or to new permanent destinations. The Jewish Refugee Society and Lawrence Kadoorie played a significant role in organizing the transit of these refugees through Hong Kong, working with organizations such as the American Jewish Joint Distribution Committee (the Joint) and the United Nations Relief and Rehabilitation Administration (UNRRA) in organizing the transit of Shanghai-based refugees through Hong Kong and to Australia. Meticulous planning was necessary due to the reluctance of the Hong Kong colonial government to accommodate a large number of refugees. 286 Stranded refugees were provided with housing and catering at the Peninsula Hotel by Lawrence Kadoorie while efforts were made to find transportation solutions between August 1946 and January 1947. The refugees themselves benefited from Kadoorie’s generosity with picnics on Chinese junks for children or outing to Kadoorie’s mansion located on the exclusive Victoria Peak. Eventually, the crisis was resolved, and by late January 1947, the last of the Shanghai Jewish refugees departed for Australia. Hong Kong continued to be an important financial and migration hub until its handover to China in 1997.

Integrating Hong Kong into Holocaust narratives entails shifting the focus from mass murder to mass migration and emphasizing the agency of individual refugees and their responses to displacement. It also involves adopting a refugee-centered approach that engages with British colonial politics. The passage argues that integrating Hong Kong into the Holocaust has broader implications beyond methodology, as it reveals an unsettling relationship where British colonial administrators and officials both saved and contributed to the displacement of refugees.

這篇文章討論香港在大英帝國網絡中作為殖民貿易港口、人口流動和庇難地的被遺忘角色。儘管香港在歷史上是不同族群的中轉港和避難所，但德國和奧地利猶太難民在大屠殺期間的遷移往往被忽視。有關猶太難民遷徙的傳統敘述大多集中在歐洲和西方目的地，並提及上海作為亞洲的主要避難港口。然而，新近採取全球性視野的大屠殺學術研究，擴展了猶太流亡和納粹種族滅絕計劃對全球影響的理解。作者旨在提升香港在大屠殺學術背景中作為另一個場域的重要性，並檢視香港與大屠殺之間被邊緣化的關係。

隨著離開納粹德國的逃亡途徑逐漸關閉，猶太人剩下一個仍然開放的選擇：上海。在有關猶太人遷徙到東亞的歷史著作中，上海之所以重要在於它是全球唯一沒有移民障礙的地方。這種特殊地位緣於上海作為歐洲半殖民地的地位：除了中國的管轄範圍外，該城的部分地區還被分為法租界和國際租界。

猶太難民途經香港並不是秘密。1938年12月19日刊登在《南華早報》上的一篇文章描繪了一個引人注目的場景： Conte Biancamano遠洋輪船上的538名德國猶太難民，除了衣物外幾乎沒有財物，更不要說已經找到工作或會講英文。其中大多數是包括老人和幼童在內的家庭。許多人都是「碎玻璃之夜」的受害者。（1938年11月9日至10日凌晨，納粹黨員、德國反猶民眾與衝鋒隊襲擊德國全境的猶太人的事件，且黨衛隊、警方和德國政府皆冷眼旁觀，沒有出手阻止。這被認為是對猶太人有組織的屠殺的開始）

作為英國殖民地，香港對人口流動實行與英國相似的限制。非華裔進入香港必須持有有效護照或旅行文件，並附有有效入境簽證。對大多數猶太難民來說，這是無法進入香港的主要障礙。然而，因應「碎玻璃之夜」而成立，由Albert Raymond與其他香港猶太群體知名成員如 Moses Talan和羅蘭士嘉道理（Lawrence Kadoorie） 領導的猶太難民協會（Jewish Refugee Society），通過募款和向難民提供臨時住所。他們還獲得了殖民當局的許可，允許難民在通往其他城市間中途停留香港，這成為了他們的救命草。

成功獲得入境簽證的猶太難民通常是在抵達上海並找到香港工作後才獲得簽證。另一個選擇是家庭贊助簽證，這是在猶太難民協會提出請願後政府才批准。然而，很少有人能突破香港這些文件「圍牆」。不幸的現實是，對大多數猶太難民來說，他們對香港的第一次和最後一次接觸都發生在前往上海的途中。

對於在香港找到住所的猶太難民來說，儘管生活在陌生環境中，卻也短暫重回日常。然而，二戰爆發以及隨後英國在1939年9月3日上午對納粹德國的宣戰改變了一切。香港總督羅富國（Geoffrey Northcote）和香港立法局成員隨即宣佈香港進入戰時狀態。猶太難民以及其他德國國民立刻被視為「敵國僑民」（enemy aliens），99名男性「敵國僑民」被送往位於九龍的喇沙書院拘留，但與中國難民相比，他們受到更好的「體面」待遇，例如最初允許他們聘請中國員工為他們準備飯菜、洗碗和做其他家務。儘管一些被拘留者在9月底至10月初被迅速釋放，但他們被要求攜帶粉紅色的身份證，每週到警察局報到，並面臨各種活動限制，他們被禁止離開，香港變成他們的拘留營。

八個月後，1940年夏季，由於對納粹德國在歐洲迅速取得勝利的恐懼，香港的猶太難民面臨被驅逐。然而，這一驅逐令在隔天，即6月7日撤回，香港殖民政府改為發布關於潛在但未確定行動的含糊聲明，引起猶太社群不安。最終，殖民當局宣布，那些未在7月8日新限期前離開的人將不被保證與納粹德國人分開拘留，甚至可能不被拘留在香港。隨著在香港尋求庇護的可能性被消除，猶太難民協會和羅蘭士嘉道理與上海的對應機構合作，安排剩餘的60名猶太難民獲取必要文件離開香港。至1940年7月底，除了兩個家庭外，所有猶太難民都已離開香港。

戰後香港恢復作為轉運港的功能，這次是為急於離開上海返回在歐洲家園或新定居地的猶太倖存者。猶太難民協會和羅蘭士嘉道理在組織這些難民以香港作為中轉發揮了重要作用，他們與美猶聯合求濟委員會（American Jewish Joint Distribution Committee）和聯合國善後救濟總署（United Nations Relief and Rehabilitation Administration）等組織合作，協助來自上海的難民途經香港往澳洲。由於香港殖民政府不願收納大量難民，因此他們需要仔細規劃。1946年8月至1947年1月期間，在努力尋找交通解決方案的同時，羅蘭士嘉道理為286名受困香港的難民提供半島酒店住所和餐飲。這些難民受惠於嘉道理的慷慨，孩子得以在中式船上野餐，或者前往嘉道理位於太平山的豪宅郊遊。最終，危機得到解決，至1947年1月底，最後一批上海猶太難民離開香港前往澳洲。

把香港納入大屠殺敘事中，意味著將焦點從大規模屠殺轉移到大規模遷徙，並著重個別難民如何主動應對流離失所。這也涉及採取與英國殖民政治相關的「難民中心」研究方法。這篇文章主張，將香港納入大屠殺中除了方法學上外，還有更廣泛的意義，因為它揭示英國殖民地管治者與母國官員的緊張關係如何導致和拯救難民於流離失所。

The introduction and passage of the 1981 Nationality Act coincided with discussions on the future of Hong Kong’s sovereignty in 1997, which triggered an identity crisis among the Hong Kong elites. This article by Chi-kwan Mark is about the 1981 British Nationality Act through the prism of Hong Kong. It examines how the Act and subsequent amendments affected the connection between the United Kingdom and Hong Kong against the backdrop of the 1997 question.

On 30 October 1981, the British Nationality Act received Royal Assent. Bringing nationality law in line with immigration policy, the Act created three separate categories of citizenship, including ‘British Dependent Territories Citizen’ (BDTC) for existing British dependent territories such as Hong Kong. During the deliberations over the bill, the Unofficial Members of the Executive and Legislative Councils in Hong Kong played an important role in lobbying the Thatcher government to protect the status and rights of British subjects in Hong Kong. With the emergence of the 1997 question, the Unofficial Members feared that the United Kingdom was distancing itself from Hong Kong as a prelude to decolonisation. No sooner had the 1981 British Nationality Act come into effect than the Anglo-Chinese negotiations over Hong Kong’s future raised serious questions about the continuation of Hong Kong’s ‘Britishness’ after 1997. The Thatcher government was willing to make concessions on the nationality issue as long as they did not risk opening the floodgates to Hong Kong immigrants, who were deemed to have no close connection with the United Kingdom. A general fear of non-white immigration underpinned the 1981 British Nationality Act and Thatcher’s forging of an exclusive British identity.

The symbolism of “Britishness” held significant importance for the Unofficial Members alongside the practical benefits. They constructed a Hong Kong identity with British characteristics, being proud of British values and institutions while considering Hong Kong their home. Emigration from Hong Kong did increase, but the majority of Hong Kong Chinese stayed, valuing the “Britishness” that contributed to Hong Kong’s economic success and its status as a free and legally-based city. The Unofficial Members exerted pressure on the Thatcher government during negotiations with China to secure a detailed agreement that would preserve Hong Kong’s autonomy and way of life after 1997, reflecting their civic British identity against socialist China’s interference.

The Unofficial Members’ attachment to “Britishness” was primarily influenced by class and status rather than blood or race. Their identification with Britishness differed from the perspectives of ordinary Hong Kong residents, who seemed less interested in the legislative changes made in London. The majority of Hong Kong Chinese, unlike the highly educated elites, likely struggled to understand the complexities of terms like CUKC (Citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies) and BDTC (British Dependent Territories Citizen). However, when negotiations over Hong Kong’s future began in 1982, most Hong Kong residents desired the continuation of British rule beyond 1997, even if they did not explicitly articulate a sense of “Britishness.”

引入和通過1981年國籍法時逢九七香港主權問題的討論，引發了香港精英的身份危機。麥志坤這篇文章以香港的視角去理解1981年英國國籍法，去審視這個法案及其後的修改如何在九七問題的背景下影響英國與香港之間的關係。

1981年10月30日，英國國籍法獲得御准。為使國籍法與移民政策一致，該法創建三個獨立的公民身份類別，其中包括現有英國附屬領土（如香港）的「英國屬土公民」（BDTC）。在討論法案的過程中，香港的行政和立法局的非官守議員在遊說戴卓爾政府保護香港英國臣民的地位和權利，發揮重要作用。隨著九七問題的出現，非官守議員擔心英國正在將自己與香港拉開距離，作為脫殖民化的前奏。1981年的英國國籍法生效後不久，中英就香港前途談判，引發了對香港九七後「英國特性」繼續存在的嚴重質疑。戴卓爾政府願意在國籍議題上讓步，只要不冒著打開香港移民大門的風險，因為這些移民被認為與英國沒有密切聯繫。對非白人移民的普遍恐懼是1981年的英國國籍法和戴卓爾建立排他性英國身份的基礎。

對於非官守議員來說，「英國特性」的象徵意義與實際利益同樣重要。他們建構了一個具有英國特色的香港身份，自豪於英國價值觀和制度，同時視香港為他們的家園。雖然港人往外移民有所增加，但大多數香港華人仍留在香港，珍視「英國特性」所貢獻的香港經濟成就和其作為一個自由和法治的城市。非官守議議員向正與中國談判香港未來的戴卓爾政府施壓，以期確保香港在1997年後的自治和生活方式，這體現了他們對英國公民身份的認同，藉此對抗社會主義中國的干預。

非官守議員對「英國特性」的認同主要受階級和地位影響，而非血統或種族。他們對英國特性的認同與普通香港居民的觀點不同，後者似乎對倫敦所做的立法變化不太感興趣。不像受高度教育的精英，大多數香港華人大概難以理解例如「英國及殖民地公民」（CUKC）和英屬屬土公民（BDTC）這樣的術語的複雜性。然而，當於1982年開始就香港的未來進行談判時，大多數香港居民希望英國繼續在1997年後管治，即使他們沒有明確表達對「英國特性」的感覺。

‘Decolonising Britishness? The 1981 British Nationality Act and the Identity Crisis of Hong Kong Elites’
https://doi.org/10.1080/03086534.2019.1638619

The tailoring industry is one of the traditional trades in Hong Kong, and “Shanghai tailoring” is one of its distinctive skills, attracting people from around the world to patronize. There is a story behind it.

Prior to the 1970s, Hong Kong was a migrant society. Due to political turmoil in China and significant discrepancies in living standards and economic opportunities, the city received a large influx of mainland Chinese immigrants in the post-war era. In the first wave of Chinese mass migration, which took place from the mid-1940s through to the 1950s, tens of thousands of Chinese tailors migrated to Hong Kong from Canton and Shanghai in search of political stability and personal safety. Thanks to their tailoring expertise and work experience, they began to develop a professional reputation in local society, earning themselves worldwide recognition as their suits emerged as one of the most representative cultural icons of the city in the eyes of many Western visitors. While some Chinese elites and businessmen would order suits from Cantonese and Shanghainese tailors for the purpose of dressing for work and social gatherings, the tailors’ target customers were predominantly Western tourists who demanded suits for everyday use and were better able to pay for them.

The Kung Sheung Evening News conducted some brief surveys that shed light on the tailoring landscape in early post-war Hong Kong. As noted in its article on 18 November 1946, at the onset of the migration wave, approximately 700 Chinese tailors fled from Mainland China and set up their establishments in the tailoring industry in 1946. After 1949, the CCP considered suits to be an ‘evil symbol’ of western capitalism, and suit businesses were quickly abandoned. More suit-making tailors, who were vilified as ‘capitalist roaders’, felt insecure living under communist control and decided to flee from Canton and Shanghai to Hong Kong due to its protection from communist governance. In this wave of post-war migration, most of the Chinese tailors migrating to the city were from Canton while only a small minority were from Shanghai. This pattern is the result of the now-strict immigration policies imposed by the colonial government in the 1950s to replace the lax controls. These measures required that all people who sought to enter the city by land from ports north of Guangdong must hold a Hong Kong entry permit. While non-Cantonese needed to obtain the permits either from the Office of the Charge d’Affaires in Beijing or through relatives in Hong Kong, Cantonese from Guangdong were exempt from this requirement. Under these stricter immigration controls, the proportion of Shanghainese tailors quickly dropped, becoming a distinct minority in the industry. However, they brought sophisticated industrial practices that oral history interviewees termed ‘a significant threat’ to their Cantonese counterparts.

With a long tradition of providing suit-making and tailoring services for Westerners, Shanghainese tailors enjoyed widespread fame in the suit market. Because they hailed from Shanghai, where Chinese and Western cultural and commercial interactions had long flourished – and where they acquired a form of cultural capital associated with what historian Leo Lee has termed ‘Shanghai modernity’ – Hong Kong’s Shanghainese tailors were able to best their Cantonese competitors in marketing high-end suits.

Recent scholarship has shown that in cosmopolitan urban spaces, identities are flexible, and migrants often integrate smoothly. But Shanghainese and Cantonese tailors who migrated to Hong Kong after World War II developed a different trajectory of identity transformation. Instead of simply integrating into a single social collectivity based on claims to a common Chinese ethnicity, they forged separate diasporic identities according to their places of origin. By problematising the arrival of Shanghainese tailors and their interactions with Cantonese tailors in Hong Kong, this article shows that pride in a place-based identity along with a strong sense of exclusiveness facilitated the maintenance of social boundaries by the Shanghainese community against the Cantonese. It argues that despite the common Chinese-ness of both migrant communities, place of origin was employed as a critical form of social identification and differentiation, creating an as-yet insurmountable barrier to the amalgamation of the two Chinese communities.

裁縫業是香港傳統行業之一，而「 上海裁縫 」是其特色技藝之一，吸引不少人從世界各地而來光顧，背後有段故事。

1970年代前，香港是個移民社會。由於中國的政治動盪和生活水平以及經濟機會的顯著差異，在二戰後時期，這個城市迎來大量中國大陸移民。從1940年代中期到1950年代第一波中國大規模移民裏，數以萬計的中國裁縫從廣州和上海移民到香港，尋求政治穩定和個人安全。憑藉他們的裁縫技術和工作經驗，他們在當地社會建立了專業聲譽，繼而蜚聲國際，他們的西裝成為許多西方遊客眼中這座城市最具代表性的文化符號之一。雖然一些中國菁英和商人會訂製來自廣東和上海裁縫的西裝，以在工作和社交場合穿著，但裁縫們的目標客戶主要是日常使用西裝的西方遊客，他們更有能力消費。

《工商晚報》進行的一些簡短調查，闡明了戰後初期香港裁縫業的情況。正如該報1946年11月18日的文章所述，在移民潮開始時，大約有700名中國裁縫師從中國大陸逃離，於1946年在香港設立了他們的工作室。1949年後，中共視西裝為西方資本主義的「邪惡象徵」，西裝業務迅速被停止。愈來愈多西裝裁縫被詆毀成「走資派」，他們對於在共產黨控制下生活感到不安，決定從廣東和上海逃往香港以免受到威脅。在這波戰後移民潮中，大多數移民到香港的中國裁縫師來自廣東，而只有少數來自上海。這種模式是上世紀50年代殖民政府從寬鬆控制轉而實施嚴格入境政策的結果。這些措施要求所有從廣東以北港口陸路進入城市的人必須持有香港入境許可證。而非廣東人需要從駐北京代辦處或通過在香港的親戚獲得許可證，廣東省內的廣東人則免除這要求。在這些更嚴格的移民控制下，在港上海裁縫師的比例迅速下降，成為該行業中的顯著少數。然而，他們的精湛工藝為來自廣東的同行帶來了口述歷史受訪者所講的「重大威脅」。

擁有為西方人製作西裝和提供裁縫服務的悠久傳統，上海裁縫在西裝市場上享有廣泛聲譽。由於他們來自上海，在那裡中西文化和商業交流長期繁榮——他們獲得了被歷史學家Leo Lee稱之為「上海現代性」的一種文化資本——香港的上海裁縫能夠在高端西裝市場上超越他們的廣東競爭對手。

近期的研究表明，在國際化的城市空間中，身份是靈活的，移民往往能夠順利融入。但在二戰後移民到香港的上海和廣東裁縫卻發展出不同的身份轉變軌跡。他們並非僅僅融入到一個基於共同中國族裔的社會集體中，而是根據自己的來源地鍛造了獨立的離散身份。通過對上海裁縫的遷移以及他們與廣東裁縫在香港的互動深入研究，本文顯示了基於地方身份的自豪感和強烈的排他性有助於上海與廣東社群之間的社會區隔。本文認為，儘管這兩個移民社群都具有共同的中國特性，但出身地被用作一種重要的社會識別和差異形式，從而在兩個中國社群的融合上創造了一道尚未跨越的障礙。

Image From:
香港故事 – 世紀物語 (第51輯)
https://podcast.rthk.hk/podcast/item.php?pid=1976&eid=193161&year=2021

Opened in 1967, Victoria Park in Hong Kong was initially planned by the British colonial government as a recreational and monumental space, with an emphasis on orderliness, recreation, and non-political activities. However, in the 1970s, the emergence of the Defend Diaoyutai Islands Movement led to collective actions that transformed the spatial order of the park.

The movement involved small-scale demonstrations and forums, with the Hong Kong Federation of Students taking up the issue and organizing protests. On May 4 1971, the movement’s organizers attempted to hold a sit-in at Statue Square, but the police refused permission, suggesting Victoria Park as an alternative. The protesters eventually held an unlawful public meeting at Statue Square, and the police arrested 12 young protesters on May 4. The police’s recommendation in turn led to the politicization of Victoria Park.

The July 7 rally in 1971 became a critical event that integrated Victoria Park into the movement and challenged the colonial government’s spatial governance. The organizers planned to hold the rally in Victoria Park due to its enclosed nature and suitability for large-scale public events. However, the Urban Council vetoed the police’s permission, citing inconvenience to other park users and emphasizing the park’s recreational purpose. Despite it being illegal, the organizers defied the ban and held the rally in Victoria Park, highlighting the contestation over the park’s spatial norms .

The police warned participants that they could be arrested, but the organizers emphasized that the rally would be peaceful. However, the police used violent means to suppress the rally, making baton charges and injuring protesters and journalists. The repression of the rally triggered public dissent and condemnation of the police’s actions. Overseas Chinese organizations also voiced their support for the protesters. The repression failed to delegitimize the protesters’ actions, and the right to peaceful collective claim-making was introduced and legitimized through these actions. The repression also caused disagreement among elite groups, undermining the legitimacy of the colonial government. After the rally, Victoria Park was transformed from a recreational space to a political space, where peaceful collective claim-making became a legitimate form of political action. The police’s disproportionate violence opened up a discursive space for the re-narration of the proper spatial governance of the park.

啟用於1967年的香港維多利亞公園，最初在英國殖民政府規劃時被視為一個娛樂和紀念空間，強調秩序、娛樂和非政治活動。然而，在1970年代出現的保衛釣魚台運動導致集體行動，從而改變了公園的空間秩序。

這場運動包括小規模的示威和座談會，由香港專上學生聯會參並組織抗議。1971年5月4日，運動組織者試圖在皇后像廣場靜坐示威，但警方拒絕批准，提議他們在維多利亞公園舉行。最終，抗爭者在皇后像廣場舉行了非法公眾集會，警方逮捕了12名年輕抗議者。警方的建議進一步導致了維多利亞公園的政治化。

1971年7月7日的集會關鍵地把維多利亞公園融入運動當中，挑戰了殖民政府的空間治理。因為公園的封閉性質適合舉辦大型公眾活動，組織者計劃在維多利亞公園舉行集會。然而，市政局否決了警方的許可，理由是會對其他公園使用者的不便，並強調該公園的娛樂性質。儘管違法，組織者無視禁令，在維多利亞公園舉行集會，突顯了對公園空間規範的爭議。

警方警告參與者可能被逮捕，但組織者強調集會將是和平的。然而，警方使用暴力手段壓制集會，以警棍攻擊，打傷抗爭者和記者。鎮壓集會引發了公眾不滿和對警方行動的譴責。海外華人組織也表達了對抗爭者的支持。鎮壓未能使抗爭者的行動失去合法性，和平集體爭取訴求的權利被引進和變得合理。鎮壓也使精英團體之間分歧，削弱了殖民政府的合法性。集會結束後，維多利亞公園從一個娛樂空間轉變為政治空間，以和平集體的行動爭取訴求成為一種合法的政治形式。警方不成比例的暴力打開了關於公園適當空間治理的論述空間。

(Image from ‘The Making of Contentious Political Space: The Transformation of Hong Kong’s Victoria Park’)

In August 1970, a quarrel about pigs arose between the Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO) and the Hong Kong government. Colonial officials had submitted designs of postage stamps commemorating the Lunar Year of the Pig, which would begin in January 1971. However, Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs Alec Douglas-Home rejected this outright: the pig image was in ‘bad taste’. Governor David Trench defended the design. Hong Kong people treasured the Lunar New Year stamps, he argued, and discontinuing this series would lead to public discontent. ‘Regret I do not consider it feasible to produce a satisfactory design commemorating the Year of the Pig without incorporating a pig’, Trench replied in a telegraph, ‘and I also do not consider it possible to explain the absence of a 1971 commemorative issue without causing much comment and some ridicule’. London and Hong Kong officials eventually compromised. After understanding the local importance of the stamps, Douglas-Home softened his tone and explained that he simply objected to the design, not the issue. Local officials accommodated Douglas-Home’s taste by replacing the local Chinese pig with a boar.

Intelligence gathered by British agencies at the time indicated that Chinese psychological warfare through print media was seen as a genuine threat to both colonial and post-colonial states in Southeast Asia. The number of left-wing printers, publishers, and bookshops in Hong Kong increased, and the importation of Chinese communist literature to Southeast Asia surged in the late 1950s.

The left-wing propaganda disseminated through Hong Kong included magazines that cultivated Chinese patriotism and affirmed the legitimacy of the CCP, as well as a limited number of books detailing revolutionary and communist ideologies. Analyzing surviving samples of these texts reveals shifts in Chinese statecraft and highlights tensions within the CCP between domestic and foreign policies, as well as between the promotion of radical ideologies and pragmatic considerations. Most of the left-wing propaganda adopted a soft approach, devoid of subversiveness, reflecting a policy of peaceful coexistence and the practical need to attract foreign remittances. However, the CCP also aimed to inform overseas Chinese about the socialist transformation taking place in China.

The article also sheds light on the tensions between United States agencies and the colonial administration of Hong Kong regarding how to control the influx of Chinese communist literature. While the United States expected strict control and even censorship of Chinese communist propaganda, the colonial government refused to comply, arguing that it was safeguarding basic legal freedoms. The Hong Kong government was also motivated by pragmatic concerns, fearing that a hard-line approach could lead to internal unrest and further deterioration of Sino-British relations. As a result, decolonizing Southeast Asian countries took their own initiatives to strengthen controls on imported communist books and periodicals, demonstrating how Hong Kong became a pivotal battleground in the propaganda war waged across Southeast Asia in the 1950s.

今天我們會介紹由新加坡南洋理工大學歷史系Florence Mok所寫的文章，關於1949-1960年香港作為冷戰樞紐下，如何傳播和遏制共產主義向東南亞華僑宣傳。

在冷戰期間，香港在中國共產黨將印刷宣傳品傳播給東南亞海外華人方面扮演了重要的戰略角色。從1949年開始，中共在香港的出版和圖書零售業建立了強大的存在，利用城市的資本主義環境擴大其文化影響力。這諷刺地使得中共在擴大影響力方面超越了他們反對的資本家。

當時英國機構收集到的情報顯示，中國的心理戰透過印刷媒體對殖民地和後殖民時期的東南亞國家構成真正威脅。香港的左翼印刷廠、出版商和書店數量增加，中國共產主義文學在1950年代末期大量進口到東南亞。

通過香港傳播的左翼宣傳包括培養中國愛國主義和確立中共合法性的雜誌，以及少量闡述革命和共產主義意識形態的書籍。分析這些文本的現存樣本揭示了中國國家政策的變化，並凸顯了中共內部存在的國內外政策以及促進激進意識形態與務實考慮之間的緊張關係。大多數左翼宣傳採取了較為溫和的方法，不具有顛覆性，體現了和平共處政策和吸引外匯的實際需求。然而，中共也旨在向海外華人介紹中國正在進行的社會主義轉型。

Image courtesy of President and Fellows of Harvard College and Historical Photographs of China, University of Bristol

www.hpcbristol.net