第四期 一九九六年七月十五日
華南研究資料中心
通訊
South China Research Resource Station Newsletter
一份神誕活動的通告
劉志偉 中山大學歷史系 今年五月十五日，我們和中山大學歷史 系的一群學生來到東莞茶山鎮的東岳廟，當 日 正值東岳大帝的神誕，我們看到一份有關此 次東岳誕活動的通告，全文如下： 敬告 東嶽廟位於東莞市茶山鎮象嶺南麓，建於元未明初，香火鼎盛，為市級 文物保護單位。農曆三月廿六日是茶園游會之期，三月廿八日是東嶽誕， 在一片國泰民安，升平景象中，我東嶽廟管理處謹於農曆三月廿八日（即 東嶽誕之日）早上九時正舉行祈禱保佑平安祭拜儀式（天神誕），歡迎 各界善長仁翁參加，每家一份，每份收人民幣 80 元。 廟中包南嘛佬、衣草、元寶、金紙、香、壽金、貢品。 個人自備果合一個、燈一盞，自己要燒的香，元寶蜡燭等，飯菜自備。 功德主要：開啟、化馬、頌經增福壽、祭幽、散花添貴子、做誕、贊星 禮斗保平安 具体有關事宜請直接與東嶽廟管理處聯系，查詢電話 6647861 東嶽廟聯系電話：6647861 茶山東嶽廟管理處 一九九六年三月十八日 按：茶山鎮又名茶園，是明清時代東莞一個 著名鄉鎮。屈大均有云：「茶園者，東莞之 會。」東嶽廟是該鎮的主廟，始建年代不詳， 現存最早的記載，見於正德十五年陳白沙的 弟子林光撰〈重建東嶽行宮記〉。通告所言 建於元末明初，當是今人臆測。由於該廟被 列為東莞市級文物保護單位，近年來得以重 建。重建後的東嶽廟，由茶山鎮居民委員會 管理，但實際上乃由私人承包。承包者的父 親是當地一位頗有名氣的喃嘸佬（在通告中 的「南嘛佬」即喃嘸佬）。當日為東嶽誕辰 做功德，通告中提及的「游會」，今年並沒 有舉行。我們當天在廟內所見，正是通告中 所述的活動，即由喃嘸做功德和以婦女為主 的個人拜祭者的參拜。從這份短短的通告， 可以讓我們了解到今天東嶽誕活動的內容。介紹東京大學東洋文化研究所
《亞洲歷史中的網絡》(Networks in Asian History)工作坊
蔡志祥
香港科技大學人文學部
一 九 九 六 年 六 月 十 七 及 十 八 日 在 東 京 大學東洋文化研究所舉行兩天的名為《亞洲 歷史中的網絡》(Networks in Asian History)的 工作坊。這是東京大學東洋文化研究所所長 濱 下 武 志 教 授 主 持 的 一 系 列 有 關 網 絡 研 究 的一部分。工作坊的目的是促進和增加與亞 洲研究有關的學者，行政人員，圖書及檔案 管理員之間的國際交流。工作坊計劃舉行四 次 ﹕ 首 二 次 主 要 探 討 當 代 亞 洲 研 究 的 理 論 和方法上的問題。第三四次則針對實際的圖 書及檔案的研究方法和研究計劃。工作坊的 組 織 者 希 望 透 過 各 次 討 論 增 加 參 加 者 間 的 交流的同時，更有效地加強個人和組織間的 合作，增進研究網絡的發展。 第一次的工作坊題為《亞洲研究與研究 網絡》(Asian Studies and Research Networks)， 在一九九六年四月十七及十八日舉行。論文 包括下列各篇﹕
Wong Siu -lun “The Current State and prospects of the Asia n research network: a Hong Kong perspective”
Lillian Pudles “Recent trends of Asian studies in France”
W.M.Sirisena “Asian studies at the University of Peradeniya in Sri Lanka”
Victor Koschmann “Area studies/Japan studies: contemporary challenges and emerg ing trends” Lee Pui-tak “Networks in Chinese business historical studies”
James R. Bartholomew “Studies of Science in Japan: new intellectual frontiers” Yukio Kawano “Regional approach to migration in Asia: an overview”
Akihiko Tanaka “Creating text -based databases for the study of postwar Japan”
Tomoko Sazanami “Archival materials in mainland China and possible researches on Chinese economic history”
Shin Kawashima “Archival materials in mainland China and Taiwan: possible researches on Chinese diplomatic history”
Laurie Damiami “Cornell East Asian program: past and present”
Takeshi Ooi “A clearing house: the Centre for East Asian Cultural Studies for UNESCO” Maureen Donovan “Asian studies research in a digital age”
Tadashi Ogawa “Asian Center and its prospectives” 筆 者 參 加 的 是 在 六 月 舉 行 的 第 二 次 的 工作坊。是次工作坊嘗試從歷史，社會學， 人類學及經濟學等不同的角度，探討在東亞 和東南亞的華人企業，家庭，地方網絡等各
種關係網的歷史和當代的發展。工作坊由上 智大學(Sophia University)的 Linda Grove 教授 主持。工作坊的論文包括下列各篇﹕
古田和子(Kazuko FURUTA) “Approaches from Sociology, Anthropology and Economic History” (古田 教授因病缺席，沒有宣讀論文)
濱下武志 (Takeshi HAMASHITA) “Networks reconsidered: market or institution?”
唐志強 (Tong Chee-kiong) “Business networks and practices among the Chinese in East and Southeast Asia”
金赫來 (KIM Hyuk-Rae) “Historical patterns of economic governance structure in South Korea” 許寶強 (Hui Po-keung) “Networks in trade and financial history in Asia”
籠谷直人 (Naoto KAGOTANI) “Chinese overseas merchants in Japanese open markets” Mark Seld en “Global reflections on East Asian Socio -economic networks”
Symposium on Current Post-Graduate Research on Hong-Kong History
March 28-29, 1996
Wong Lai Kuen Department of History, The University of Hong Kong
Jointly organized by the Centre of Asian Studies and the Department of History, and sponsored by Japan Foundation, a Symposium
on Current Postgraduate Research on Hong Kong History was held on March 28 and 29, 1996
in the University of Hong Kong.
As stated in the promotion newsletter,** the objectives of the symposium are to:
“*Identify the latest topics, themes and approaches in this field.
*Enable young scholars to make their public debut
*Build a network among well-established and young scholars
*Provide the first step towards a database on Hong Kong studies and the publication of guide to research on Hong Kong.”
From the objectives above it shows that the symposium is exceptional in a few ways. First, it is well known that symposia are times for networking and sharing, but this time the ‘young scholars’ were the main characters and the occasion was meant to foster the vertical network between young and well-established scholars. In particular, the young scholars can learn from giving their own debut presentations and responding to various comments while the well-established scholars can also participate and contribute. Yet, as noted by Dr. Elizabeth Sinn, the symposium coordinator, in the welcome address that very often it was the tea breaks and lunch breaks between formal presentation sessions when more exciting interactions took place.
Second, the idea of holding a symposium on Hong Kong History itself has witnessed the ever-growing interest in the field. Although the
symposium was conducted in English, it attracted scholars from all over the world. There were at least fifty participants from Hong Kong, mainland China, Japan, Singapore, Britain, the United States of America and Canada. We also had people from the press. Obviously, the 1997 issue is a main factor attracting people’s attention to Hong Kong history and Hong Kong Studies in general. It is the concern for the future which brings us back to the past and to the sense of our identity. In both the academia and the media, there are growing enthusiasms in themes like tracing back the historical root, reviving nostalgic reminiscences, accounting for the miraculous success of Hong Kong and defining ‘Hong Kong Identity’. Hopefully it is not just a short span mania, but a beginning of the study of Hong Kong in its own right.
Under the great banner of ‘Hong Kong History’ the symposium welcomed people from various disciplines. Responding supportively towards the inter- and multi-disciplinary trend in the academia, the symposium was meant to enrich and enhance individual disciplines and to promote active communication among disciplines so that new directions and combinations can develop. In the symposium there was constructive and stimulating sharing between historians and social scientists. Papers presented also covered wide-ranging approaches, from conventional political interpretation to more mass-concerned social and cultural perspective, from urban to rural, from expatriate European to local different dialectic Chinese commu nities, from the governor to the governed, from colonial to traditional, from the past to the present and some even heading
towards the future. Issues being dealt with in these papers included land and customs, law and policing, economy, education, religion, ideas of group identity, labour and voices of women.
Since it was an occasion for young scholars to offer their debut presentations and most of the papers were still in the process for revision, only abstracts were required. Altogether there were fifteen participants to present their works and share the experience of their research. The two-day symposium was divided into five main themes and in each session was chaired by a well-established scholar. The five main themes of the symposium are as follows:
Session One: Chinese Society in the New Territories
Session Two: Education, Religion and Culture Session Three: Hong Kong and China Session Four: Politics and Government
Session Five: Chinese Merchants, Business and State
The New Territories, being the theme of the first session, has always been a popular context for scholars to study the rural Chinese tradition in Hong Kong. The proximity of the N.T. to the mainland allowed scholars to conduct alternative field works when researching in the mainland became more and more difficult in the 1960s. The colonial framework, on the other hand, is another attraction. In his presentation, Chan Wing-hoi (Yale University) shared his field work experience in the New Territories on the topic of women’s ritual songs. Bringing out the post-modern and feminist approach, Mr. Chan pointed out how the process of transforming women’s ritual songs from oral to written words could involve the issue of spilt subjectivity between the women who sang the songs and the scholars who were responsible for literary documentation. It therefore brought out the controversy and ambiquity about those female singers’ identification with the mainstream culture and their demonstration of resistance.
Besides, Mr. Chan was also concerned with the recycling and the reinterpretation of problematic texts from generation to generation, from one dialectic group to another. Using syntactic and contextual analysis, Mr. Chan suggested the active yet subtle interaction and communication between the female singers and the male scholars. To both groups those songs might mean different things according to their own individual understanding, interpretation of the songs and the greater context of ‘culture’.
Kentaro Matsubara (Oxford University) used the landholding practices in the New Territories as a framework to investigate how the western colonial legal system made sense of the traditional Chinese concept of land and property, on both levels of family and lineage. Maurice Freedman’s lineage incorporation and Shiga Shuzo’s family property holding approaches were applied and criticized in the process of ‘reconstructing’ the landholding practice in Hoi Ha of the N.T.. Using the native written documentation as a base to understand the landholding practice, Mr. Matsubara raised the question of the role of literacy itself. Echoing Chan Wing-hoi’s concern, Mr. Matsubara also suggested that language and literacy meant more than reflective presentation, but active construction and acculturation. In his paper, it was the case of how state culture being incorporated through the vehicle and tradition of literacy to the rural lineage and family organization.
Sharing the same concern about how the western colonial government practised soverenigty in the New Territories, Selina Ching Chan (National University of Singapore) in her paper explored the subject of the constant negotiation between native people and the colonial government (district officers) in redefining ‘Chinese Custom’ for practical accommodation and mutual benefit. The paper inspired us to think about ‘What is Chinese Culture?’, ‘Who define the culture as Chinese
or not?’ and how culture can be politicized through bargaining and manipulation.
Religion and in particular Christianity is another important research area in Hong Kong history, as shown in session two, entitled ‘Education, Religion and Culture.’ Using mainly Catholic archival materials, Louis Ha (The University of Hong Kong) attempted to re-construct a picture of the 19th century Catholic Church in Hong Kong. Despite the seemingly unified image of the Catholic missionary, it involved national, sectional, geographical differentiation and loyalty, not to mention the competition, limitation and adaptation in the early colonial environment where the British and the Protestant enjoyed the vested interest and position. Through the exploration of the Church History, the paper also carries a mission to reveal the complexity and diversity of the Hong Kong society in the 19th Century.
John Tan (The University of Hong Kong) on the other hand diverted our attention to the topic ‘ Catholic Education in Hong Kong under Decolonization’ which hinted the concern for the future political implication of both religion and education. Mr. Tan intended to adopt a comparative approach towards decolonization and education of Hong Kong in the commonwealth context. Catholic education was chosen as the case study to demonstrate the tensions existing in the transitional period. Mr. Tan’s presentation indeed opened the discussion about the sensitivity and ambiquity of the concept of colonization and decolonization.
Timothy Wong (Chinese University of Hong Kong) told his story about the British Protestantism in Hong Kong, a by-product of the colonial rule. Yet the emphasis of the paper was beyond the conventional political interpretation of imperialism or ‘the white-man-burden’. Instead, Mr. Wong approached the church as a social institution. The subject of Mr. Wong’s
study was the London Missionary Society in Hong Kong between 1840 and 1880. In his paper, Mr. Wong suggested the three-fold meanings of the missionary, namely evangelism, provision of social welfare services and the function as cultural ambassador between the west and the Chinese. Instead of portraying the missionary as an imperial ideological justification or a tool for colonial administration, the paper disclosed how the missionary exercised its agency by actively utilizing the colonial context and resources to create meanings for their existence and development.
Like religion, education is yet another key area to explore and to understand Hong Kong history and society, the people and their mentality. In her research of Piu-Kiu Middle School, Lam Ka-ka (Chinese University of Hong Kong) opened the discussion of the interaction between politics and education in Hong Kong. Through studying ‘patriotic schools’, ‘pro-China schools’ or ‘left-wing schools’ like Piu Kiu, Miss Lam showed us the political and strategic potential of education, as perceived by mainland China; and how the colonial government and those ‘patriotic school’ reached a point of agreement for mutual accommodation.
Following the theme of education and culture, Cheung Kwai-yeung (The University of Hong Kong) captured our attention to a refreshing topic: ‘The Scholar-Newspaperman: a Vanishing Paradigm in Hong Kong.’ Researching on Dr. Louis Cha and his Ming Pao Daily, Mr. Cheung aimed to illustrate how different and difficult for scholar to run newspaper when compared with businessman and government official. As a printing and publishing centre in Asia and as a free cosmopolitan city, there have been numerous newspapers appeared in Hong Kong. Newspapers are not only the tool for research, but itself also a subject of research, as shown by this paper.
The second day of the symposium started with session three, and the theme was ‘Hong Kong and China’. Apart from its colonial identity, one can not really grasp the essence of Hong Kong without looking northward for a greater context. ‘The China factor’ is a well-known cliché in Hong Kong Studies. Owing to the geo-political reality, cultural affiliation and economic connection, Hong Kong was never separated from the mainland and in particular Canton. Hiroyuki Hokari (University of Tokyo) was a part of this argument by focusing on the Cantonese network between Hong Kong and South-east China from the late 19th to the early 20th century. The network, according to Mr. Hokari was constructed by the circulation of money, commodities and migrants. From these it developed business practices, charitable activities and various ties within the Cantonese-speaking region. Organizations like Tung Wah Hospital and Po Leung Kuk were bases of his investigation to illustrate how Hong Kong related to its surrounding area.
Also interested in the networking of the grass-root people within and beyond Hong Kong, Fung Chi-ming (The University of Hong Kong) attempted to show us the extent and the function of the web by his research on rickshaw pullers in the late 19th- to the early 20th-century urban Hong Kong. The commercial development and the associated need for transport in the Victoria City gave rise to this new occupational group. Despite their seemingly low social status then and their disappearance nowadays, they bore significant political and economic roles in Hong Kong history. The process of understanding their origin, their life and their networks can fill the gaps in our knowledge of Hong Kong Chinese community in the past.
Finally, Shinji Kanada (University of Tokyo) diverted us to the commercial and financial network Hong Kong shared with Canton as a regional unit, as perceived by the foreign banks in the second half of the
nineteenth century. By studying the establishment, development and distribution of regional branch offices by foreign banks and foreign firms in Hong Kong and Canton; and the issuance of bank notes, it revealed the strategic and commercial importance of Hong Kong over Canton within the South China region. It in turn made Hong Kong a more well established commercial centre.
Although not true nor fair, it is still an understood and accepted assumption that Hong Kong history started with its colonial identity in 1842. Colonial administration therefore is an inevitable part and a natural beginning when researching on Hong Kong history. Positively speaking, the colonial identity enriches Hong Kong as a subject of study because it makes Hong Kong applicable to contexts like colonialism, decolonization and commonwealth comparison. Besides, colonial and administrative perspective does not necessarily mean routine succession of governorships and their policies. Christopher Munn (University of Toronto) surprised us with an interesting topic on how ‘effective’ the early colonial legal system was in Hong Kong where the population was overwhelmingly Chinese. Using a variety of sources including the contemporary newspapers, Mr. Munn traced the development of court cases to reveal the lack of communication and understanding of the colonial government towards its Chinese subjects which in turn caused a lot of unnecessary abuses and further mutual mistrust. A legal system which meant to justify the name and the practice of colonial sovereignty ended up being counter-productive and ridiculous.
Daniel G. Skinner (University of Adelaide) on the contrary gave credit to the colonial rule for its ability to achieve stability throughout the transition to Chinese rule by adopting a system of ‘Low Intensity of Democracy’. Backing up his argument, Mr. Skinner cited Ian Scott’s ‘colonial minimalist bureaucracy’ and Lau
Siu-kai’s ‘utilitarianistic familism’ theories to bridge Samuel Huntington’s ‘gap hypothesis’. Unlike Mr. Munn, Mr. Skinner offered us a political science analysis of the contemporary colonial administration which justified the strategic significance of the seemingly failure of democratization in Hong Kong.
It is generally agreed that not until the post- Second World War did Hong Kong develop a sense of identity and an intention of ‘settling down’. Before that, Hong Kong was merely a transitional station or a haven for those who sought temporary refuge. For most people, given the general political stability and her proximity to the mainland, Hong Kong was a place for business. Especially important for ambitious businessmen, knowing how to manipulate politics was a survival and prosperous skill. This explains the theme of the session five entitled ‘Chinese Merchants, Business and State’. Chung Po -yin (H.K. Baptist University) was an articulate protagonist of this subject with her research topic ‘Chinese Business Groups in Hong Kong and Political Change in South China, 1900s-1920s’. While it is widely known that business and politics are inseparable partners, Miss Chung offered her story about how the partnership took place in the context of the early twentieth century Hong Kong. The main characters were Chinese merchants, Hong Kong government and Chinese politics, meaning both the imperial court and the south China warlords. Once again, it proved that Hong Kong was closely related to the mainland with her ever-changing roles and functions.
Sharing the same historical framework of the early 20th-century Hong Kong, John Carroll (Harvard University) explored something different, but equally inspiring, namely the sense of identity among the Hong Kong Chinese bourgeoisie and the relationship between state and society. Combining sociological and historical discourse, Mr. Carroll examined the uniqueness of the Hong Kong Chinese
bourgeoisie by taking into account factors like the influence of KMT government, colonial government and Chinese nationalism in the early twentieth century. Comparisons were made among Chinese bourgeoisie in the republican China, in Taiwan and in Hong Kong. Mr. Carroll suggested the dynamic relationship between the state and the society throughout history. Besides, the emergence and the interpretation of the ‘sense of Hong Kong identity’ was significant in the formation of ‘Chinese bourgeoisie’ in Hong Kong.
In the concluding remarks, Dr. Elizabeth Sinn started the round-conference-room discussion by singling out some main themes being particularly and repeatedly addressed during the two-day symposium. The first one was sinology. The best example was the anthropological perspective in the New territories, as evident in the first session. Secondly, the term ‘network’ was mentioned frequently during the symposium. A great variety of network had been dealt with including networks based on family relation, same native place origin, occupation and missionary. The concept of network implied connection and relationship among different groups of people. It also suggested the complexity, interaction and mutual-dependence of the society.
There were also many discussions and comments from other participants in this concluding session. The following is the summary of some main discussion being raised which also include my own observations. Above all, the symposium witnessed various approaches towards interpreting Hong Kong history. Apart from the conventional ‘top down’ approach, the idea of understanding the society and history ‘from below’ was becoming more and more popular. Due to the influence of social sciences, post-modernism and feminism, historians were using different lenses and voices in exploration and explanation. There were new trends like social history, cultural history, urban
history, economic history and histories about particular groups, such as women, labour and Eurasian community. Gender, class, race and occupation became new historical perspectives injecting exciting interpretations in the field. Besides, it was the idea of status quo expressed in terms of mainstream, dominant, central Vs peripheral, marginal and minority which also attracted scholars’ attention and imagination.
Language is another problem. Very often it was the conceptual definition rather than the thematic arguments which aroused controversy. Words like colonialism, decolonization, ‘Hong Kong Identity’, ‘bourgeoisie’, ‘Chinese community(ies)’, ‘Cantonese’ and ‘Chinese customs ’ were regarded as ambiguous and required clarification before their valid application in discussion. Furthermore, language also involved the question of subjectivity and positioning, presentation and representation. When history is being written and presented, we should ask whose voice does it represent? For whom, by whom and of whom is the history written and presented? Not only is the content of history important, we should also pay attention to the background of the historian, as well as the process and the perspective behind the writing of history itself. For example, Alan Birch mentioned that in the case of Eitel and Endacott, their identities as historians and their motivations to write history were multiple. When ‘deconstruct’ their identities, they were westerner, European, colonial government officials, individual scholars and missionary(Eitel only); and all these factors were significant reminders when we are to ‘read’ the histories they wrote. In other words, as historians and readers, we should develop a sharp sensitivity towards historiography.
Although each paper in the symposium reflected certain aspect of Hong Kong history, at the end it was generally agreed that Hong Kong was a mutli-dimensional society which demanded special attention. Hong Kong is a melting pot
where East meets West. The New Territories preserves the Chinese tradition which may be even more Chinese than in China. Also a window to the west, the colonial identity fosters Hong Kong as an undoubtedly cosmopolitan city. Geo-politically speaking, Hong Kong is a very important nexus in both the South China region and the greater southeast Asia. When it comes to people, the history of Hong Kong itself is a history of migration and refugee. The complexity and diversity of people, activities, organizations and networks provide endless topics for discussion and exploration, definition and inspiration.
Heading towards 1997, Hong Kong history and Hong Kong studies is energized with new meaning and new challenge which has not only awakened the local scholars, but has also aroused international attention, as shown by the great variety of participants, their affiliated institutions and the topics presented in the symposium. Naturally we also attracted the attention from the mainland. During the symposium, two articles were distributed to participants reporting the effort being made on Hong Kong historical studies in Beijing (Chinese Academy of Social Science) and Guangdong (Guangdong Academy of Social Sciences).
As stated in the objectives, the symposium concerned both the product and the process of history writing on Hong Kong. While some participants shared their joys and agonies of their research in their presentations, there were also exchanges of the new sources and skills available in the field. Noted by Carl Smith in the keynote speech, historians should not just care about the past, but should also be up-to-date when it comes to technology.
For scholars researching on Hong Kong History, CO129 (Colonial Office series 129) is an important source providing information on the early colonial government administration from 1841 onwards. Yet, locating particular information in CO129 has always been an
inevitable and agonizing part. Thanks to the computer technology, there will soon be a computerized index of CO129 on CD ROM (from 1841-1926). The venture was sponsored by the University Grant Committee and organized by Dr. Elizabeth Sinn and Mr. Louis Ha. During the symposium, Mr.Ha demonstrated the forth-coming finding aid to participants twice and we all look forward to its completion at the end of this year.
As for sources, we were glad to know that the Public Record Office was to be computerized and re-settled in Kwun Tong next year. Dr.
Elizabeth Johnson also mentioned the existence of the Vancouver Overseas Chinese Archive in the University of British Columbia in Canada.
In conclusion, while holding this symposium on Hong Kong History was a innovative and successfully attempt, we expect to see more forthcoming symposia on specific areas such as economic, politics, culture, environmental studies and architecture.
--- **The School of Research Studies Newsletter of
the University of Hong Kong Vol.3, No.6, Feb 1996, Pg.3.
The list of papers presented in the conference
Chan Wing-hoi (Yale University)
The making of “women’s voice”: Cantonese women’s ritual songs in Hong Kong Kentaro Matsubara (University of Tokyo)
Literacy, lineage and landholding: holding and transfer of property in a New Territories village, 1811-1955
Selina Ching Chan (National University of Singapore) Chines custom in a ‘borrowed place, borrowed time’ Louis Ha (The University of Hong Kong)
The 19th century Catholic mission in Hong Kong John Tan (The University of Hong Kong)
Catholic education in Hong Kong under decolonization Timothy Wong (Hong Kong Baptist University)
The church as a social institution: case of the London Missionary Society in Hong Kong, 1840s-1880s
Lam Ka-ka (Chinese University of Hong Kong)
Interaction between politics and education: case study of a ‘patriotic school’ in Hong Kong Cheung Kwai-yeung (The University of Hong Kong)
The scholar-newspaperman: a vanishing paradigm in Hong Kong Hiroyuki Hokari (University of Tokushima)
Cantonese network: social history of modern Hong Kong Fung Chi-ming (The University of Hong Kong)
Urban grassroots: rickshaw pullers in Hong Kong Shinji Kanada (University of Tokyo)
Foreign banks in Hong Kong and their relation with Canton, 1845-1865 Christopher Munn (University of Toronto)
An insubordinate and semi -barbarous people: Chinese defendants and criminal justice in early British Hong Kong, 1841-1866
The success of low intensity democracy in Hong Kong Chung Po-yin (Hong Kong Baptist University)
Chinese business groups in Hong Kong and political change in South China, 1900s -1920s John M. Carroll (Harvard University)
The making of the Hong Kong Chinese bourgeoisie: state and society in early twentieth century Hong Kong
活 動 消 息
Chinese Business History Conference
The Rise of Business Corporations in China From Ming to Present July 12-13, 1996
organised by Centre of Asian Studies The University of Hong Kong
Venue: Senate Room, 10/F., Knowles Building
July 12,1996 (Friday)
9:15-10:45 Session One
Business corporations in traditional China: form, structure and change I
11:00-12:30 Session One
Business corporations in traditional China: form, structure and change II
13:30-15:45 Session Two
Modern Chinese companies in the late Qing reform
16:00-18:15 Session Three
Big business enterprises in Republican China
July 13, 1996 (Saturday)
8:30-10:45 Session Four Business networking in China 11:00-13:15 Session Five
Overseas Chinese business and its networks
14:15-15:45 Session Six
Chinese business in Hong Kong I 16:00-17:30 Session Six
Chinese business in Hong Kong II 17:30-18:15 Concluding Remarks 18:30-20:30 Round Table Discussion
Trends and Prospects of Chinese Business Historical Studies
---
「在鄉商人：中國東南地方文化的比較研究」工作坊 一九九六年七月十七至十九日 地點：香港科技大學學術大樓 7341 室（13-15 號電梯） 香港科技大學人文學部、華南研究會 合辦 七月十七日 第一節：福建 時間：9:30-12:00 講者：張小軍（中文大學） 鄭振滿（廈門大學） 陳支平（廈門大學） 第二節：潮州 時間：14:30-17:30 講者：陳春聲（中山大學） 黃挺（汕頭大學） 第四節：珠江三角洲 時間：14:30-17:30 講者：陳永海（耶魯大學） 劉志偉（中山大學） 廖迪生（科技大學） 楊寶霖（東莞） 七月十九日 第五節：江西 時間：9:30-12:00蔡志祥（科技大學） 馬木池（科技大學） 七月十八日 第三節：粵東客家 時間：9:30-12:00 講者：房學嘉（嘉應大學） 劉義章（中文大學） 黃玉釗（梅州檔案館） 講者：梁洪生（江西師大） 邵鴻（南昌大學） 鄭銳達（科技大學） 第六節：圓桌會議 時間：14:30-17:00 第四屆社會經濟史與文化人類學工作坊
The 4th Workshop on Social Economic History and Cultural Anthropology 香港科技大學人文學部主辦
華南研究會協辦
講者: Dr. Rajeswary Ampalavanar Brown 題目：中國商業文化與歷史的研究課題
（Research Agenda for Chinese Business Culture and History） 地點：香港科技大學學術大樓 7332 室（13-15 號電梯）
七月十五日（10:00-12:00） 第一講：組織與國際競爭
Lecture 1: Organization and International Competitives
七月十五日（14:30-16:30） 第二講：研究與發展
Lecture 2: Research and Development 七月二十日（10:00-12:00）
第三講：公司、階層與網絡
Lecture 3: Firms, hierarchies and networks 七月二十日（14:30-16:30）
第四講：中國商業與新興工業國家的經 濟增長：一個歷史的觀照 Lecture 4: Chinese business and the
economic growth of NICs: a historical perspective --- 《華南研究資料中心》讀者回條 姓名(Name)：_________________________________先生 / 女士 (Mr / Ms.) 服務機構(Institution)：____________________________________________________________ 通訊地址(Mailing Address)：________________________________________________________ 電話(Phone)：______________________電子郵箱(E-mail)：______________________________ 與海外研究者建立密切的聯繫，是我們編輯《華南研究資料中心通訊》的目的。以往未有填 寄此回條者，如欲繼續收到本中心的《通訊》，務請將此回條填寄本中心。若於第五期出版 前，仍未收到閣下的回覆，本《通訊》將不會為再為閣下寄上。 香港 九龍清水灣道 香港科技大學人文學部
Clear Water Bay, Kowloon, Hong Kong The Hong Kong Unversity of Science and Technology
Humanities Div ision
蔡志祥先生 廖迪生先生 Choi Chi-cheung Liu Tik-sang
中國廣州市 中山大學歷史系 China Guangzhou Zhongshan University History Department 陳春聲先生 劉志偉先生 Chen Chungsheng Liu Zhiwei Tel: (86-20)4186300
Tel: (852)23587766 Fax: (852)23581469 E-mail: [email protected] Fax: (86-20)4189173 E-mail: [email protected] 《華南研究資料中心通訊》 華南研究會 華南研究資料中心 出版 出版日期：一九九六年七月十五日 第四期 執行編輯：馬木池 編輯委員會：蔡志祥、陳春聲、劉志偉、張兆和、廖迪生、馬木池
