thrown at the lorries.”
32The crowd’s reaction showed that the hostility toward the Taiwanese was widespread and deeply–rooted among the locals in Hong Kong. And the situation got so violent that “[A]t one stage it was necessary for the Police to draw their revolvers”.
The scene at the embarkation point Blake Pier was equally tense, under a strong presence of the law enforcement, and the display of hostility against the Taiwanese was more than apparent: “[A]mong the crowd, the more youthful members were armed with sticks. Police officers, British marines and sailors kept them well away from where the enemy nationals were assembling on the wharf prior to embarkation”. And furthermore, in a rather cheerful tone, the report described the crowd’s reaction to the departure of these internees: “[T]he small wharf between Blake Pier and Douglas Wharf formed a ringside seat for the onlookers and there were intermittent bursts of cheers and jeers as they watched the Koreans and Formosans boarding the ferry-launch.” 33
As reported in the newspaper, the local population of Hong Kong clearly expressed a strong sense of animosity, hatred and even violent action toward the
Taiwanese.34This was surely a shock to those Taiwanese—such as the aforementioned Mr.
Lin—who had lived in Hong Kong before the war broke out in 1941, as the postwar attitude of the local population was a stark contrast to the friendly relationships between the local (Chinese in particular) and the Taiwanese in the pre-war years. So what caused the prevailing animosity and hatred among the local population? One of the key factors, as discussed earlier, was the behaviors and image of some Taiwanese during the wartime, particularly the assisting role to the Japanese military occupation. In addition, the postwar British policies and media reports that shaped public opinion further generated hatred toward the Taiwanese.
Two articles in the English newspaper on September 5, 1945 provided the best examples of the official and public attitude toward the Taiwanese. In the
“Correspondence” column on the front page, an anonymous “W” raised the question of
“Formosan Problem” to the “editor, S.C.M. Post and the Telegraph”).35 The column, presumably was authored by the newspaper, discussed the status of Formosans in Hong Kong. It started by criticizing the government for its lack of clearly defined policy concerning the Taiwanese, as it asked: “please obtain guidance for citizens who feel they have a public duty concerning Japanese and Formosans.” It then described a conflicting
32 SCMPHKT, “Public Animosity: Formosans and Koreans Concentrated in Kowloon: Weeding Out”, September 8, 1945, Morning edition, Page 1 “
33 SCMPHKT, “Public Animosity: Formosans and Koreans Concentrated in Kowloon: Weeding Out”, September 8, 1945, Morning edition, Page 1 “
34 Other examples can be found in 張建俅，〈迢迢歸鄉路—戰後港澳地區台胞返籍始末〉，《港澳與 近代中國學術研討會論文集》（臺北：國史館，2000 年），頁 551-552
35 SCMPHKT, “Correspondence－Formosan Problem ”, September 5, 1945, Morning edition, Page 1
situation: on the one hand, the “Chinese Police Reservists have been ‘combing out Japanese and Formosans’”; yet, on the other hand, the “Chief Censor could not give an opinion when the problem of Formosans would be solved”.
In view of the government’s rather undecided standing concerning the “Formosan Problem”, the column was rather critical and it put pressure on the authorities by asking:
“Can Formosans be arrested now merely because they are Formosans?” And in
conclusion, the column expressed an unequivocal sense of hostility against the Taiwanese:
“I would like to reserve to myself the pleasure of bringing about the arrest of a certain Formosan (whose hiding place can be ascertained) and whose face is familiar to many residents. It would be a pity if he slipped through the net”.
On the very same day, the paper also reported a government statement concerning the
“legal status” of Formosans in Hong Kong. The statement, made on the previous day by Chief Justice Sir Atholl MacGregor through Chief Censor D.J. Sloss, confirmed the Formosans as “enemy national”. It explained that while the Formosans “have not had the full rights of Japanese citizens born in the Japanese islands”, they “have been Japanese nationals” since 1895. It pointed out that as Japan went into war against China, Great Britain, and the U.S.A., “she employed large number of Formosans in her armed forces and the towns of Formosa were brought into the war industry in the manufacture of munitions”.36
Such description clearly represented the entire people of Formosa as culprits responsible for Japan’s war and, consequently, the Allies’ suffering. And as a way to relate this point to the readers and the general public in Hong Kong, the statement immediately added wartime experiences of the Island: “we in Hong Kong became accustomed to the sight of Formosans, either as members of the Japanese Army or as guards bearing arms at prisoners of war camps and at Stanley”. The statement then concluded, “In every way and to the fullest extent, therefore, Formosans have, during the war, been enemy nationals”. A statement like this not only expressed a strong sense of hostility against the Taiwanese; as an official announcement, it further served to
condone—if not legitimize—the rising hostility and ongoing attack by residents of Hong Kong against the Taiwanese.
The statement then discussed the most critical point concerning the postwar “legal status” of Formosans. It pointed out that “in consequence of the Japanese defeat, China has once more occupied the island of Formosa”, and asked: “Does that in any way alter the legal status of the inhabitants?” But it answered in an assertive tone: “The answer to that is No”.
The statement, which confirmed the Formosans as “enemy national”, may appear as a rather swift response to the media pressure seen in the “Correspondence” column on the front page of the same day. But, from the standpoint of the newly established British
36 SCMPHKT, “Formosans Enemies: Legal Status Explained by Chief Justice: Interesting Problem”, September 5, 1945, Page 2
military administration, the “Correspondence” column could also serve as a calculated media tactic to confirm the British official view and raise public awareness of the administration’s newly defined policies concerning the Formosans in Hong Kong.
And more significantly, in view of the government statement, the answer to the central question raised in the “Formosan Problem” column on the front page of September 5’s paper, “Can Formosans be arrested now merely because they are Formosans?”, become more than apparent if not self-evident: Yes. And the most fundamental point raised in both the “Correspondence” column and Chief Justice’s statement was that every Taiwanese, particularly those in Hong Kong, were equally liable and responsible for Japan’s war against the British, Japan’s military occupation of Hong Kong, and the suffering of residents of Hong Kong under the terror of Japanese Empire.
When the British authorities issued the “Police Notice: Formosans and Koreans”
on 5th September 1945, one of the announcements was addressed to the Formosans (and Koreans), demanding their compliance with the government’s internment policy. The other announcement was addressed to the general public of Hong Kong, asking for (or rather demanding) their support and assistance in arresting Formosans:37
“Members of the public in Hong Kong and Kowloon are requested to report to the nearest police station particulars of any Formosans or Koreans who fail to comply with the instructions issued by the Hong Kong Police in the English and Chinese Press requiring them to proceed to concentration point between the hours of noon and 3 p.m. September 7
th, 1945”
And immediately following this order, the legal authorities of Hong Kong made arrest of and prosecuted Hong Kong residents who allegedly helped any Taiwanese to hide and stay away from internment. One of the arrested was a 24 year-old Hong Kong woman who was arrested on October 6th, under the charge of “harboring Taiwanese”;38 she was put on trial on October 18th, and sentenced to 3-week jail term.39
At the same time, newspaper helped to advocate and legitimize the government decision to put Taiwanese into internment. In the familiar form of “Correspondence”
column, the paper made an appeal to the general public that “Some Chinese and Third National War Criminals” who had committed crimes during the war “Should be Punished”. However, the column started by stating:
“It is gratifying to note that the authorities are rounding up the Formosans in the
Colony, but there are certain Chinese and third nationals who should also be remembered”.
40
37 SCMPHKT, “Enemy Nationals: Formosans and Koreans to Report to Police: Public Responsibility”, September 6, 1945, Page 2
38 《星島日報》，「梁女 窩藏台人 被拘候審」，中華民國 34 年（1945 年）10 月 6 日，第 4 版。
39 《星島日報》，「私藏台人 少婦被控」，中華民國 34 年（1945 年）10 月 18 日，第 3 版。
40 SCMPHKT, “Enemy Nationals: Formosans and Koreans to Report to Police: Public Responsibility”, September 8, 1945, Evening edition, Page 1
Statement like this seemed to imply, if not to assume, that the Taiwanese were in the same category as “Chinese and Third National War Criminals”, and thereby deserved to be interned and punished as the authorities had done in the previous day. From this perspective, the column actually served as a media endorsement to, if not propaganda of, the government’s decision to treat, intern, and arrest the Taiwanese as “enemy nationals”.
And more importantly, newspaper reports and government policies and action further stirred up hostility against the Taiwanese among the local Hong Kong population. In the eyes of the local government authorities and the general public, the Taiwanese were seen as former enemies who lost their enemy nationality.
Internment of the Taiwan: from Hong Kong Island to Kowloon to Stanley
After reporting to the British authorities on September 7th, all Taiwanese in Hong Kong island were transferred to Kowloon and put into internment. According to a newspaper report, there were more than 18,000 Japanese soldiers, civilian, Koreans and Taiwanese interned the Kowloon.41 They were interned in the Whitefield Barrack (and the
surrounding area), which was near Kowloon’s major business district Nathan Road in the Tsim Sha Tsui area.42 My own personal visit to the area confirms that the internment camp is located in the present-day Kowloon Park, in which the remaining buildings of the Whitefield Barrack are now the Hong Kong Heritage Discovery Centre.43
The Whitefield Barrack was once the largest British military compound in Hong Kong, built at the end of the 19th century, in commemoration of Major-General H.W.
Whitefield. There were righty-five buildings in the compound, in the early days these buildings were mostly used by the British cavalry and thereby many were used as stable to keep horses.44 The history of the Whitefield Barrack indicated that the compound was in no way designed or suitable for ordinary people to live in, not to mention families with women and children. Nevertheless, the compound was used to intern thousands of
Japanese, Korean, and Taiwanese civilians after the war. A Taiwanese internee, Miss Dai, Xiu-mei, recalled the horrible living condition in the compound and her illness: