Japanese Adoption of the Pao-chia System

The implementation of the traditional Pao-chia system was in line with both the principles of biology and the basis of top down hegemonic control. Over time the hoko system became a key institution in controlling and mediating the population. The Pao-chia can be dated back to eleventh century. The system was set up in China proper in 1644 when the imperial court ordered local officials to set up Pao-Chia units. In 1733 Taiwan was included in the system however the rural control system was never

universally adapted on the island. The lacking control, supervision, and police control the system only gained a limited degree of function on Taiwan. It was not until the last

decade of Chinese rule and the start of modernization that the system gained effectiveness.

(Chen, 1975:343)

In the summer of 1896, after breaking down an uprising in the Central Taiwan, the Japanese adopted the Pao-chia system in local areas in order to keep control. After the success in Central Taiwan, the system was adopted over the entire island. In October 1896 Internal Affairs department of the Government General formulated a set of rules and criteria for the system. The local authorities could grant permission for village leaders to organize self-defense associations. The goal was to protect the lives and properties of the villagers. When organizing a militia, the local groups had to get permission from the prefectural governor or the district head. Once permission had been granted the local police chief was in charge of supervision, orders, and training of the militia. For the first three years however the system did not succeed the Japanese expectation. It was not universally adopted, and never gained effectiveness. The Japanese themselves was not able to set up proper policing in the initial period and therefore was not able to control the system. (Chen, 1975:394)

After the arrival of General Kodama Gentaro and Goto Shimpei, the system gained importance. Goto found the system to be effective in dealing with insurgent problems and commanded the draft of a bill to make the system a supplementary organ of

28

the police. General-Governor Kodama promulgated the “Hoko Law” and the

“Regulations Governing the Executions of The Hoko Law” in august 1898. The system was not mandatory applied, but central pressure combined with support from the local authorities made the system spread throughout the island, except from in aboriginal districts.Compared to the Pao-Chia system the Hoko changed the component of the registrar from individuals to household. The household referred to any individual legally living in the household, both family and hired workers. The head of the household represented the entire household. The system was only adapted for the Taiwanese.

Japanese living in Taiwan did not have to register in the system. (Chen, 1975:394) In contrast to the old system existing of three levels, pao-chia-pái the hoko had two levels, pao and chia. Approximately ten households made up one chia, and about ten chias made up one pao. The number of households in the unit however varied depending on local condition. In some cases such as cities, larger pao and chia were adopted. Each chia had an elected headman representing the chia. The leaders were elected by the members of the unit, served for two years at the time, and were eligible for reelection.

The leaders had to be the leader of the household; they were suppose to come from the respectable families and had to be literate. People under twenty and people who had served a prison term was disqualified from holding the position of leader. The elected leader had to be approved by the local authorities. The leaders therefore needed to be cooperative with the local government. Similarly the leaders of the chia elected the leader of the pao (pao cheng). The Pao Chengs role was to keep law and order in his

jurisdiction. Likewise the Chia Cheng had the same duty in the smaller units. The members of each unit paid for all the expenditure for the clerks, leaders and militia.

Leaders as well as the militia members did not get salary for their job. Instead, they were given favors such as access to education, business opportunities and appointment to official positions. By giving opportunities the Japanese were able to secure the cooperation from the leaders of the units. At the same time they were able to create a working system for law and order financing itself. (Chen, 1975:395)

For the first decade after its implementation the hoko was designed to cover five areas of Taiwanese life. 1) Household registration, 2) Population movement, 3) Social security, 4) Transportation and 5) Sanitation. In addition each of the units had its own

29

rules it had to adopt. In practice all the rules had to 1) include the name and boundaries for the unit, 2) Regulations concerning social order and security. Such as investigations or observations of arrivals and departures in the community, 3) The role of the hoko in local administration such collecting taxes, tracking infectious diseases and, rehabilitation of opium smokers, repairing and clearing roads and bridges, and eradicating harmful insects and cattle diseases. And 4) the rules regulated the bookkeeping in terms of the level of fines and rewards for the hoko. (Tsai, 1990:89)

Two of the main purposes in the Hoko were household registration and control of movements of the population. According to the rules the head of each household had to report to their headman if any of the members of his household made a trip or stayed overnight elsewhere. They had to report about the destination, purpose and duration of the stay. Likewise they had to report the name, occupation and duration of stay for any

visitors. In some cases local authorities could prohibit residents to travel or receive visitors without police permits. These restrictions were applied at times of diseases or social unrest. Whoever failed to report to their hoko officials were subjects to fines. (Tsai, 1990:91)

The fines were crucial in implementing the system. The following is an example of the fines from an 1899 Tainan hoko code. 1) Failure to hang a door placard: ¥0,05 to

¥1,5; 2) Failure to report a birth or death in the household within seven days: ¥0,05 to

¥1,5; 3) Failure to report the stay of visitors ¥0,1 to ¥3,0; 4) False report on population movement ¥0,5 to ¥3 and ¥0.2 to ¥2 for the hoko leader connived at the falsification; 5) hiding or affiliating with rebels ¥3,0 to ¥25; 6) Failure to give aid to neighbors during robbery:¥1.0 to ¥5.0; 7) Failure to help other households in times of emergency: ¥5.0 to

¥50.0 on the whole unit; 8) Failure to guard against security problems: ¥5,0 to ¥10.0 on the whole unit. 9) Hoko official's resignation without proper reason up to ¥10.0 and 10) refusal to join the corps of able bodied men after appointed: up to ¥5.0. (Tsai, 1990:101) The headman was responsible to make sure the people were following the rules.

They also had the role of reporting to the police about suspicious people or behavior, report on population change, including births and deaths, report on diseases, assisting

30

officers in search of criminals, instructing the members to be law abiding, and punish those who did not follow rules. (Tsai, 1990:93)

The key to the system was the application of collective responsibility. If a member of a unit was convicted, the other members would be fined for not informing the

government about the crime. In order to prevent people from helping and supporting insurgents and bandits, there was a collective punishment for ignoring the unit rules. If one of the members violated the rules of the unit, all members were punished. In the initial years, the collective responsibility was not very effective. However around 1901 the Japanese had gained control of the island and did now have an effective police force.

The government appointed police officers to oversee each unit, making sure that colonial policy penetrated every corner of the policy. As the police force grew more competent the fear of collective punishment made the units cooperate with the government and report and turn in suspicious behavior. The organization and financing of the system was in line with the general policies. By giving opportunities the Japanese were able to secure the cooperation from the pao chia leaders. (Chen, 1975:398)

The hoko system was also utilized in the efforts to improve sanitary conditions on the island. Some of the obligations for the hoko leaders were to guide the people and extinct the bad habits from its members. A more practical example of the hoko is the Campaign for Rat Extermination. The campaign required each household to turn in a fixed quota of dead rats every month. The campaign was carried out through the hoko leaders in cooperation with the police. Those who exceeded their monthly quota would be rewarded. As the same time, those who failed to turn in their quoted number of rats had to pay a fine per missing rat. An example of a fine would be ¥0,5 per missing rat. The campaign was effective in removing the number of rats. In August 1912 alone, the number of caught rodents amounted to 41.923.641 In addition the hoko system would be used to detect diseases and follow up with quarantines. (Tsai, 1990:113)

The hoko system became a successful means of control over the Taiwanese people. As Goto wrote “This institution has been powerful enough to keep the native insurgents in check and preserve the peace of the community”. The effectiveness of the system was demonstrated in the first half of the 1910s after the Chinese revolution. As

31

supporters of Sun Yat Sen went to Taiwan to organize resistance and get Taiwan back to China, the fear of the hoko punishments made the leaders report on the activities. As a result the nationalist revolution broke down before it gained any momentum. (Chen, 1975:403)

In 1909, realizing the effectiveness of the system, the Governor General expanded the scope of the hoko from an auxiliary of the police into a legal organ of the local

administration. In most cases the local pao chia worked together with police preventing crime and protecting the local areas. In some cases the police could call for assistance, for example in case of the need of extra guards, or during natural disasters such as typhoons or earthquakes. The pao chia unites was legally responsible for sweeping and repairing the roads. The pao chia also served a role in bettering the health and sanitary conditions on Taiwan. The police officers, together with the hoko leaders made sure policies were implemented. The principle of mutual responsibility made the entire community

responsible and reprimanded if they didn't follow the rules. The pao chia system was also used to collect taxes. The principle of collective responsibility remained for taxation reasons. As a Japanese official quotes: “It is due to this system that though Formosans are rather heavily taxed few fail to pay taxes.” (Chen, 1975:405)

Further the pao chia system was used as a way of increase productivity in the agriculture. The Japanese set up farmers associations spreading knowledge of technology and effective productions to farmers. In addition the system was used to get rid of

unwanted practices As Chen 1975 notes “the pao chia system should also be given considerable credit for enabling the Japanese authorities to minimize or get rid of the age old undesirable customs such as opium-smoking, foot-binding, queue-wearing, gambling and the habit of burying silver and gold underground as a method of saving” (Chen 1975:406) Although the Japanese wanted to get rid of the undesirable customs, the customs stayed in Taiwan for some time. In the case of opium smoking, the government monopolized opium sales. Thus the opium smokers became an important source of revenue for the Japanese. In the case of queue wearing and foot binding, the government deemed it too dangerous to ban it as a ban could introduce resentment and resistance among the Taiwanese. Instead they started campaigns for change. The campaigns only had limited success. In 1915, in relation to the 20th anniversary of colonial rule, the

32

Japanese banned queue wearing and foot binding. The banned was carried out and enforced through the hoko system. From February to August 1915, more than 763.000 women, about 60 percent of the foot binded population, unbound their feet. In the same period more than 1.3 million Taiwanese cut of their queues, leaving only about 80.000-queue wearing Taiwanese. (Tsai, 1990:114)

Over time local Taiwanese started opposing the system. The discriminatory nature of the system, where the Japanese did not have to join, caused uproar. Likewise the rural population protested that the system kept overburdening them with extra duties due to the pao chia. Perhaps the biggest protests were against the principle of collective

responsibility. The protesters argued that the system was contra dictionary to the principles of the modern law. Some changes were made to system, however it stayed in effect throughout the Japanese rule. Overall the hoko system was an effective instrument in implementing rule of law on Taiwan. As concluded by Song: “The tight Japanese rule regimented the Taiwanese populace into law abiding citizens” (Song, 2009:81)