Hong Kong, An Almost Anglicised Society

a review on Sir John Hennessy’s cultural integration policy and its heritages in the early 20th century

(This is a journal first delivered in a conference on 24th May 2019, later modified as current version in 2020 and published by Hongkong Young Historian Institute in 2022; ISBN: 9789887509110/9887509116; link: https://www.google.co.uk/books/edition/%E5%8F%B2%E5%AD%B8%E6%96%B0%E7%A7%80%E5%B9%B4%E7%8D%8E2020%E8%AB%96%E6%96%87%E9%9B%86_%E4%B8%8A/OkJpEAAAQBAJ?hl=en&gbpv=0 )

Abstract

“The nature of Hong Kong is a culture characterised by both Eastern-ness (East Asian) and Western-ness (British)”, this is not only a statement widely agreed in the region, but was an idea given by Sir John Hennessy, the 8th Governor of Hong Kong who also launched the cultural integration movement in Hong Kong. During his governance (1877–1883), the cultural policy was changed from a relatively laissez-faire form to a more aggressive approach. The policy consolidated Hong Kong’s cultural nature and turned Hong Kong into a more significant part of the British Empire instead of the myth created by the scholars with Sinocentric historical perspectives. They suggested ‘Hong Kong’s nature is in one hand an exceptional case of British colonialism because of its commercial purpose, in another hand is a British-governed Chinese city’, in order to rewrite the pre-war history and re-educate the Hongkongese people for ‘consolidating’ their patriotism towards Chinese nationalism. Therefore, this study would be discussed the Hennessy Cultural Integration policies (the Hennessy Reform) and how it influenced the later development of the ideology in the early 20th century in Hong Kong.

Introduction

Reviewing the first half of the 20th century, Hong Kong as a British colony and a claimed territory of the Chinese Republic was a battlefield of values which to be specify — the Imperial Identity drew from the British Empire and the rising Chinese nationalism formed in the Chinese Republic. Chaotic anti-western movements broke out in China during the 1920s influenced to the colony in certain extent. However, as the promotion of imperial identity to the citizens from the colonial government, Chinese nationalists were hardly to launch an ‘uprising against the British Imperialists’ even during their relatively successful cross-country strike (Anti-British General Strike in Canton and Hong Kong) between 1925 and 1926 (Horrocks, 1994). While the Chinese workers who temporary stayed in Hong Kong allied with the Chinese nationalists in China striking against the Hong Kong government, the locals, or the Anglo-Chinese written in government document, chose the opposite — they tended to keep the stability and continuity as an Anglo-Chinese colony instead of welcoming a ‘liberation from China’. However, the Anglo-Chinese was not only representing to those who born in Hong Kong, but also to those who desired to be a British subject and viewed Hong Kong as their permanent home (Smith, 2005).

Also, Hong Kong as a crown colony was invited to participant in the British Empire Exhibition between 1924 and 1925. Media in the colony concluded the participating in the exhibition is a test on whether the local Hongkongese had developed their belongings in the colony and the imperial identity or as similar as a Chinese nationalist in China. And according to the reporting, Hong Kong is passed and well awarded. Although it is somehow not accurate to show the whole picture of the identity among Hongkongese, it suggested that at least they were not showing any hate against the Empire during the 1920s.

In considering the two incidents between 1924 and 1926, citizens in Hong Kong were not having less sense of belongings either as a Hongkongese or a British subject of the Empire as the Sinocentric historical perspective suggested. Chinese nationalism did influence to the colony in certain extent but it was far to be described as the Hongkongese was very stuck into Chinese nationalism ideology and identity, the introduction of British values took the main role instead. First of all, it has to be understood that the English language is one of the significant tool for the colonial government on either introducing the British values (or in some perspective was an assimilation process) or integrating culture between the local Cantonese culture (with some Chinese customs) and the Anglo/British culture.

However, there is a need to clarify that at that time the British viewed all the former subjects of the Manchu Empire (China) as Chinese without considering their ethnicities, not until post-war era did the scholars from the Hong Kong Branch of the Royal Asiatic Society and other institutes discovered the Cantonese and Chinese could possible be different ethnicities (Lo, 1955; Barnett, 1964), which Barnett was also the then District Commissioner in Hong Kong. Therefore, in concerning there is in fact several East Asian ethnicities settling in the town, the term “Anglo-Chinese” would be replaced as “Anglo-East-Asian” in the following context.

The Reason of Establishing Hong Kong

Unlike many treaty ports or leased territories governed by the British in the Chinese coasts, Hong Kong was not established for trading reason only. According to the letter to the Viceroy of India from Charles Elliot, who was the former first Administrator of Hong Kong, he suggested that Hong Kong should and would be both a trading port and a permanent settlement for the British subjects. In his letter wrote on mid-1841, he further added that Hong Kong is not only a colony for commercial affairs but also a shelter for the Hong Kong islanders, tancareiro/tancareira in Portuguese. Tancareiros are the indigenous Cantonese, or in a name of “Tankas” which is a romanisation of the English language by describing an ethnic slur used in the Chinese language, they are the people who allied themselves with the British during the opium war. Following the policy of establishing “a shelter”, unwelcomed subjects of the Manchu Empire (China) moved to the colony rapidly — some of them are other indigenous Cantonese lived outside Hong Kong and some are Cantonese or Chinese Christians (Smith, 2005).

Although Hong Kong was as Elliot said to officially become a British territory by signing the treaty of Nanking in 1842, the early days of the colonial government did not have a strict guideline on establishing any cultural policy to its newly subjects — which there is yet to have a proposal on introducing the British values into the colony. Instead, the government had to focus on some more urgent challenges, such as the hygiene and public security issues. Therefore, if there is a need to claim which specific cultural policy the colonial government made in the early days of the colony, it would simply be educating the citizens on hygiene issue and the respect of the rule of law. By all means, the “cultural policy” made in this stage could be marked as either a laissez-faire or minimal perspective on intervention in the first decade of the colony.

Cultural Policy In The Pre-Hennessy Era And The Japanese Visit

After dealing with the necessary difficulties on hygiene and security issues of the colony, the government then switched a bit of their cultural policy by introducing more shares of the English education towards the locals. Although there was no major change on the cultural policy before the Hennessy Era (1877–1883), some significant progresses were taking place in switching into a less laissez-faire perspective on making Hong Kong a more “British” region. Between the 1850s and 1870s, serval changes were added to the education system which by another way a change of the cultural policy.

Comparing with the roaring 1870s, there was a relatively conservative era between the 1850s and 1860s, for example, schools could still choose to provide English language or not (or decide the studying time on English) by their wish, but there still a few progresses were made during this period. In the 1850s, the Education Committee actively introduced elementary instruction in English, which as a policy on engrafting western learning in the curriculum (Evans, 2006). The English language would somehow became a tool for the Hong Kong government to maintain a connection between the locals and European communities through the shared knowledge of the English language (Evans, 2006), although it would be likely conducted in a colonial way.

Reports from the Education Committee showed two evidences which could be referring to the results of English education then in certain extent. In one hand it showed that numbers of locals were eligible as English teachers in the local schools already in 1860; and in the other hand showed that the Cantonese/Chinese students would like to enroll in schools providing ‘English education’ which those schools were supposed to establish for Europeans and Eurasians in town (Evans, 2006). As a result, the locals were educated and learnt the new values (western values) apart from the old Confucian system through the English language, which these results were remarkably recorded by the Japanese who were taking visits in Hong Kong in 1867 and 1871.

Shibusawa Eiichi, later the father of Japanese capitalism, had a short stay in Hong Kong and China in 1867. He observed that the local Hong Kong people was different with the people in China, such as the Chinese in Shanghai, which he then marked the personality of the people in Hong Kong was better in hygiene and manners in his report. A few years later in 1871, Kido Takayoshi, one of the Japanese statesmen of the Meiji Restoration, visited Hong Kong and shared a similar thought with Shibusawa but was focus more in the urban planning. Nevertheless, results of the Hong Kong education were accredited to a certain extent by these two Japanese reformists, also the important figures of the Japanese Meiji Restoration.

The Application of Irish Model in Hong Kong

Unlike the conservative perspective in the 1860s, a more radical reform was encouraged by the government in the early 1870s. One of the examples could be found is the English textbooks used at schools. On April 1873, the legislative council of Hong Kong government formed a committee on translating English books into Chinese texts for the usage in local schools (Sweetings, 1990). The reference of the books was however not from England, but Ireland. The books selected on local education were as same as those published for Irish National Schools but just translated into Chinese texts. It should not be surprised on using Irish books as the territory was at that time a part of the British Empire as well, however, in considering the assimilation policy towards Ireland in the 19th century, the Irish education system was in fact acting “as an agent of civilisation, socialisation, assimilation, politicisation and the reproduction of colonial values with a view to making Ireland more governable” (Walsh, 2016).

Even there is no direct evidence on showing whether the goal of education system set in Hong Kong is as same as the situation of Ireland or not, it is no doubt that some of the “spirits” of the cultural policy in Ireland did influence to Hong Kong — increasing allegiance to the British Empire in order to make the colony a more governable place (Walsh, 2016). In general, the cultural policy in this stage was turning from almost laissez-faire to a more active intervention, but it was also almost no aggressive cultural integration policy existed in the region until Sir John Hennessy became the Governor of Hong Kong.

But Why Irish? Challenges of Nationalism and Reaction In The 1860s And 1870s

Not only could the Ireland case be a reference on discussing the cultural policy of Hong Kong, the political change of the U.K. (the mainland of British Empire) or other European powers in the 19th century also played a very significant role on influencing the region.

After the French Revolution and the later Napoleonic Wars, (nation-state) nationalism became one of the major concerns among the European empires. Even the Congress of Vienna opened after the Napoleonic Wars did draw some time on preventing the spread of nationalism, revolutions and uprisings called for independence returned after a short period, such as the Belgium Revolution in the 1830s. However, a more nation-state-oriented uprising such as the Irish uprisings in the British Empire, the Polish uprisings in the Russian Empire, the Hungarian uprisings in the Austrian Empire and etc. in the early and mid-19th century created a threat to these multi-ethnical empires. Besides, the British Empire was not very different with either the Russian or the Austrian in its structure; the only major different is that the British Empire is an overseas empire, which in a sense, the challenges they faced are in a very similar context (Kumar, 2006).

In reacting to the challenge of nationalism, the empires tend to create or maintain an Imperial identity within its subjects, which was an identity identified by either being loyal to the empire or sharing a common values in the standard given by the empire. The empires wished to contain an identity which was not based on races but the sense of belongings in order to maintain the existence as a multi-ethnical empire. Scholar Krishan Kumar further explained in his study on which he suggested “Empires are typically made up of many peoples, of many different ethnicities… to govern the empire one needs to make as many of these peoples as possible feel that they belong, that the empire is as much theirs as it is that of those who originally created it” (Kumar, 2006). Thus, without considering it was succeed or failed, the “Imperial Identity” could be seen as a tool against the nationalism in the 19th century and early 20th century.

In 1867, the Austrian made a compromise with the Hungarian and formed the AustroHungarian Empire as a solution on tackling the Hungarian nationalism. Coincidently, some British intellectuals suggested that the British Empire could call for a greater integrated status among the colonies, such as Charles Dilke, author of the book “Greater Britain” published in 1869. In his book, he suggested that “the imperial experience provided that element of vastness of dominion which, in this age, is needed to secure width of thought and nobility of purpose, as well as offering the possibility of planting free institutions among the dark skinned nations of the world” (Wellings, 2002). Like Dilke, numbers of British intellectuals believed that a common imperial identity could be constructed through the shared values and imperial experience in both white and nonwhite colonies. British Empire was an overseas empire and its national identity was constructed through its expansion from the British Isles to overseas colonies (Wellings, 2002), as an alternative description, it could be viewed as a “civilising mission” (Kumar, 2006).

With the expansion of the British governance among the colonies, the U.K. government at that period was in a Liberal era. Liberalism and humanistic ideologies dominated the British politics for more than a half of the 19th century. The colonial way of the British Empire was changed rapidly in the 19th century, which changed to the one on consolidating British values into the colonies. The rule of law, the English institutions and the English language were taken as the empire’s achievements and as William Huskisson, the statesman once explained these achievements were the seeds of “freedom, civilisation and Christianity” (Kumar, 2006). In the eyes of the Liberal government, the colonial policy was modified with adding a mission on spreading the “seeds” on “civilising” the subjects in the colonies. This ideology did not appear only in the mid19th century, it was popular too in the late 19th century and 20th century, and for example, campaigns launched by Joseph Chamberlain, the then Secretary of State for the Colonies (1895–1903).

Focusing the 1860s and early 1870s Hong Kong, there were a few policies made on introducing British values into the colony. Hong Kong was then changed its role from simply a trading port and “shelter” to a base in the mid-19th century on advancing British influence and promoting the British values in the East Asia region — and history proved it was success at least on the encouragement of reforms in China and Japan. Thus, in order to consolidate the British influence in the colony and continue the “civilising mission”, an aggressive cultural policy was established in the late 1870s, the Hennessy Era.

The Hennessy Reform: Cultural Integration Policy

As discussed in the previous sections, the British government intended to conduct a shared imperial identity among the colonies on sustaining the empire in react to the threat of nationalism, the imperial identity would however conduct by values instead of by races. But as there were different situations in each colony, the policy applied and its scale would be diverse. As in the case of Hong Kong, it would be late until John Pope Hennessy became the Governor of Hong Kong to apply “Anglicisation policy” in the local community, or as some scholars urged — the Hennessy reform would somewhat be as similar as an “assimilation policy” towards the Hong Kong locals.

In 1878, not long after John Hennessy became the Governor of Hong Kong, an education conference was held and concluded a proposal on shifting the education policy to be English-oriented — the English language should be promoted with British political, economic and cultural interests (Evans, 2006).

Few years later, Governor Hennessy gave a speech publicly in a governmental school (Central School) in 1880 to further explain his ideology — “It is my wish, it has been the ambition of nearly every man who preceded me in the Government of this Colony, and it has been the policy of all Secretaries of the State, who have written to my predecessors and myself that Hong Kong should be made an Anglo-Chinese (Anglo-East-Asian) Colony, where Her Majesty should have thousands upon thousands of Chinese (East-Asian) subjects, with a thorough knowledge of the English language-amenable to English law and appreciating the British Constitution, loyal to their Queen, and a strength to this distant part of Her Majesty’s Empire.” (Smith, 2005). In his speech, Hennessy briefly concluded the works conducted by his predecessors and his goal of the cultural development of the colony.

He also added in the same speech which further mentioned the way to achieve his goal on the cultural development of Hong Kong — he believed that “the education scheme will accomplish a practical result if it assists in achieving this… An Anglo-Chinese (AngloEast-Asian) Colony, such as I have over and over again expressed my wish to see here, must spring from the children in the Colony” (Smith, 2005).

In concerning the general purpose of Governor Hennessy, he aimed to create a shared imperial identity or offering an opportunity for the locals on “socialising or transforming” into a British subjects with imperial identity as similar as the popular ideology in the U.K. As to create a sense of belongings of the locals, it would be benefited on both governing to the colony and sustaining the empire out of the threat of nationalism, as stated in section 3 — the stability of the empire requires its multi-ethnical subjects to feel that they belong to the empire as far as possible (Kumar, 2006). However, even the governor wished to do so, if the locals were against or at least unwelcomed the policy, the influence of the Hennessy Reform would be likely in a limited scale.

A record of messages delivered from the local merchants and shopkeepers to the Governor might help to disclose the doubt — the locals was indeed welcoming the Governor’s plan and attitude. Speech gave from the Governor in 1880 clarified that “the locals have children and grandchildren born in this Colony, and desire to become naturalised in order to see the property they hold transmitted to their children as from British subjects to British subjects” (Smith, 2005). Reviewing in the details of the Hennessy Reform, what are the exact efforts he did on achieving either his goal or the locals’ wishes? With the strong attitude since Hennessy became the Governor and the supports of the locals, he intended to reform the colony fundamentally in both educational and political.

Along with the partnership with Ernst Johann Eitel (then Inspector of Schools), Governor Hennessy first took his step on introducing a radical application of the English language in Hong Kong as he wrote in the letter to the Secretary of State for the Colonies at 27 January 1878 (Sweetings, 1990). In the letter, he mentioned that numbers of native residents of Hong Kong were wishing the government to provide an opportunity for their children to be taught in English, he further took Singapore as an example which was an explanation for the Secretary of State for the Colonies that the successful experience of English education to the Singaporean could also be applied in the Hong Kong situation (Sweetings, 1990). He then reformed the education system in Hong Kong to be an English language oriented model which published on the Hong Kong Gazette with stating a comment of “the primary object to be borne in view by he government should be the teaching of English” on March, 1878 (Sweetings, 1990).

Although his general purpose was to promote the British values through the English language to the locals, he was not only focusing on the education of the English language, instead was also in the higher education as to have a full scale educational reform. In order to consolidate the colony’s English education system and prevent for the nationalism threat from China, he purposed to develop the colony’s own higher institute. First was a suggestion on establishing a local “university” by raising the Central School into a collegiate institution which offering higher education in English and Science in 1880 (Hong Kong Government, 1881), unfortunately the plan was resulted in just a proposal which was never made into practice.

However, the failure did not stop the ambition of Governor Hennessy, a year later in 1881 he established the first full-time and single-purposed teacher training institute in the territory, entitled as “The Government Normal School” (Hong Kong Government, 1882; Fang & He, 2001). Unlike the proposed “university”, the Government Normal School was established and run for two years until Governor Hennessey left his office, which the aim of the school is to train local teachers (marked as “native masters” in the Hong Kong Government Notification №276) for the schools of the colony. The Normal School at the end trained a few local teachers with qualified abilities on both English and the native language under the examination inspected by Eitel, the Inspector of Schools (Hong Kong Government, 1882, 1883; Fang & He, 2001).

Reviewing the tries in the Hennessy Era, either the proposed “university” or the existed normal school, it did enlightening the education reform of the colony, which in a way these late 19th century experiences encouraged the seeking of higher education in Hong Kong during the whole pre-war 20th century. Governor Hennessy foresee there is a need on establishing teacher training college and colligate institute for higher education for Hong Kong locals in order to react to the rising of modernised China (and its Chinese nationalism) or other East Asia countries. Following the proposed “university” failed to establish in the 1880s, the citizens urged to form an Imperial University in Hong Kong, a more radical request in 1905 and it was further took into consideration by the Hong Kong government in 1908 (Sweetings, 1990).

The University of Hong Kong was at the end established in 1911 during Frederick Lugard’s governance. As the Hennessey government successfully established the first normal school in Hong Kong, the short but significant experience influenced and became some references to the teaching training college formed in the 20th century (Fang & He, 2001), to be specific the Hong Kong Technical Institute (teacher training sector) was established in 1907 (Lo, 2014) under Sir Matthew Nathan’s permission, Sir Nathan is Governor of Hong Kong between 1904–1907. Comparing to Sir Hennessy’s Normal School, the Technical Institute exists long enough to train lists of native qualified teachers with the loyal to the colony.

Apart from this school, a few teacher training institutes (in vernacular education) were established in the 1920s, similar to the concepts brought out by Education Policy in British Tropical Africa published in 1925, these schools ought to maintain a vernacular education with British values towards to the natives (Lo, 2014). Examples of schools established in this era included Vernacular Normal School for Men (1920–40), Vernacular Normal School for Women (1920–41), The Taipo Vernacular Normal School (1926–41). Some students of these schools, such as Vernacular Normal School for Women, were given a Cantonese nickname by the public as “Wong-Ga-Si-Fan-San, lit.: Royal’s Student of Normal School” (Fang, 2003). These schools end up either merged in or abolished because of the founding of Northcote Training College in 1939, at present as a merged school in the Education University of Hong Kong.

Apart from the educational sector, the Hennessy Reform contains political reform as well. Unlike some Sinocentric historical perspective stated that the political sector of the Hennessy Reform is either a “pro-Chinese policy” or a realistic strategies on “winning over the local elites for stabilising the colonial governance”, the Hennessy Reform was indeed both influenced to elite and non-elite citizens. The reform was mainly about two issues, one was sharing the political rights with the locals and the other was allowing the non-HongKong-born Cantonese/Chinese residents neutralised as a British subject.

In the part of political rights of the locals, although it was written in the instruction of 1865, likely a constitution of Hong Kong, which the locals should be enabled to hold high office including the judiciary, the government and the councils (Owen, Owen & Tingay, 1973), the first local member was not appointed until the Hennessy Era. Ng Choy, the first local (not born but raised in Hong Kong) shared the political rights from the colonial government with entitled as Justice of the Peace in 1878 and appointed to be unofficial member of the Legislative Council in 1880.

In the part of neutralisation, the Hennessey Reform offered a chance for the Cantonese/Chinese residents who are not born in Hong Kong or other British soils to neutralise as a British subject if they are both qualified in the government standard and wish to do so. That act was valid since 1881. Reviewing the speech gave by the Governor in the Central School in 1880, he highly remarked that the locals would like to be a British subject instead of a subject of China or an “overseas Chinese” without any identity. Although some studies urged that the motivation of these locals were just realism and shared almost no belongings as a British subject, it could not be questioned that the Hennessey Reform opened a way for further evaluation for the locals, a way to choose their own identity or the nation that they would be loyal to.

However, even the Hennessy Reform was the first large-scale reform in the history of Hong Kong and which its reforms influenced to Hong Kong and the people for decades, there were some failure that was a bit deviated from the original plan of Governor Hennessey. Hong Kong was therefore not became an assimilated colony, but as the heritages of the Hennessey Era, Hong Kong and its people absorbed, evaluated and integrated the British values with its east Asian characteristics, such as the mixed-code/creole language it formed (So, 1992), the respect of the Anglo/British values and the loyalty to the country.

Therefore, a mixed/creole culture was formed by the heritages but in a very fragile status in the late 19th century and later consolidated its existence in the prewar 20th century. The Hennessy Reform was as proposed to be a cultural assimilation policy which the fact was resulted as a “cultural integration policy”, a “soft assimilating” instead of the traditional definition on colonial assimilation. The indigenous people took the pride of receiving a British view of civilised values with integrating their own culture instead of clearing or replacing it. Thus, one of the goals in the Hennessey Reform was relatively in a more successful stage — the introduction on imperial identity to the local Hong Kong people, which for example it could be seen in the celebration of the Jubilee of Hong Kong (50th anniversary of the establishment of Hong Kong) in 1891, however, it would be until 1920s to become a social norm.

Importance of The Hennessy Reform And Its Heritages

Sir John Hennessy left his office in 1883 and when the successor Sir George Bowen came into power, some of the items of the Hennessy Reform were terminated, namely the abolishment of the Government Normal School. Not only Governor Bowen, there were some important figures in the colony did not agree with Hennessey’s cultural integration policy to the locals in Hong Kong, which for example Bishop Hoare believed that the colony should “train up the Chinaman to be a Chinaman and not half a Chinaman and half an Englishman”, a speech gave in 1901 (Sweetings, 1990). Moreover, the Education Report published by the Hong Kong government further stated a similar suggestion but in a less aggressive way — the Hong Kong government believed western knowledge should be taught to local students as a compulsory subject but the English language was difference (Sweetings, 1990). It seems that the efforts of the Hennessy Reform was left the colony with the then Governor in 1883, but the situation was not in concerning the attitude of the British government. As mentioned in previous section, Joseph Chamberlain, the then Secretary of State for the Colonies disagree with the Education Report of 1902 (Sweetings, 1990).

As following the ideology on “Greater Britain” in the U.K., a book titled “Twentieth Century Impressions of Hong Kong, Shanghai and other treaty Ports of China” published there in 1908 stated “Sir John Hennessy was first suggested that the local students devoted to the acquisition of the English language… and Sir Matthew Nathan (Governor of Hong Kong, 1904–1907) was a successor on the task on successfully promoting the improvement of local students in English conversation in the Government District schools, and urging the application of a Western system even in vernacular instruction of the colony” (Sweetings, 1990). The book was indeed further explained on the Hennessy Reform was temporary terminated but then relaunched and continued again in the early 20th century. In a short summary, the government after the leaving of Hennessy would wish to overturn the reforms, but in fact the English-oriented policy rooted by Hennessy in the colony could not be turning back (Evans, 2006) in which the locals were already convinced by the values and the wishes given by the Governor.

On forming the loyalty towards Hong Kong and the Empire among the locals, Hennessy and his regime took education as a way to do so. In his reform, the education system was fundamentally changed in both elementary level and higher education level. Englishoriented Education was applied successfully (to be remarked that the students still need to study Chinese at school but the primary purpose was changed to English education) and there was a government-funded, qualitied normal school for the locals established in Town. Not only the system itself was meaningful, the reform sent a message to the local community that the empire is willing to “accept” them yet the empire is looking forward for their return on showing the loyalty to the empire. As both practical and emotional reason, the Hennessy Reform was successful earning the respect and pride in the local community, which the practical reason refers to gain of modern knowledge and commercial skills; the emotional reason would be the acceptance from the nation which numbers of the locals were once the unwelcomed subjects of the Manchu Empire (China).

Yet, the results of the reform were not very clear to be found in the Hennessy Era due to Hennessy did not serve Hong Kong in an enough long period. However, it did not represent that the Hennessy Reform was a failure; instead the phenomenon of the Hong Kong people consolidating their imperial identity could be discovered through years between the Hennessy Era and the prewar 20th century and which the temporary termination of the Hennessy Reform did not stop the consolidating process.

As spoken in the 1880 speech gave by Governor Hennessy, numbers of locals mentioned that they desire to keep their children in Hong Kong as they wrapped up all their future interests in the colony; the locals viewed Hong Kong as their permanent home, real country and last resting place (Smith, 200). Following this attitude, it further developed into an early form of identity with (British) values in the celebration of Jubilee of Hong Kong in 1891. Later then, along with Governor Matthew Nathan relaunched some policies which were in the Hennessy Reform in the late 1900s, the imperial identity started to grow widely among the locals, and raised once again with the formation of the Imperial University — the University of Hong Kong.

After the Great War, London held the British Empire Exhibition in 1924 which Hong Kong gained a seat in. The result of the exhibition was that the locals showed their civilised appearance to the empire with their loyalty, and which was highly remarked by the Royal family and of course the local press South China Morning Post (Zou, 2012). Not long after the exhibition, the Chinese Nationalist Government launched an antiBritish strike in Canton and later influenced to Hong Kong in 1925. Riots and violence activities happened in Hong Kong which numbers of the loyal locals refused the enlistment by the Chinese (motived by Chinese nationalism), and volunteered to serve the colony in any needed position.

In this stage, it was not only the local elites showing their loyalty to the empire, but the general public, the working class did too. The non-elite locals showed they were more independent, more settled, and more localised than the Chinese revolutionaries acknowledged and were not victims of an “oppressive colonial regime” as imagined by the Chinese nationalists (Horrocks, 1994). As successfully tackled the challenge caused by Chinese nationalism, the bonding between the locals and Hong Kong (or with the empire in certain extent) was consolidated enough to be in a non-reversible status, the evidence was that in the 1941 right before the Pacific War broke out, locals are willing to join the defense troops of the colony in a volunteer status. In fact, the locals could stay away the military service by law. They fought with their blood until the Japanese army took over Hong Kong, after that many of the local soldiers neither hided in China nor joined the Chinese army but remain service to the British army as a British soldier battling in British Raj, Burma and China. Thus, an autonomous plan was proposed for Hong Kong between the wartime and early post-war era as a return for loyalty from the locals, however the plan was resulted in a disapproval in 1952 due to military threat from the Red China.

Hongkong, An Almost Anglicised Society

The heritages of the Hennessy Reform was formed by these experience, which on the bright side was created a mixed/creole culture of Hong Kong and introduced British education and system in the region; on the dark side was that it create an identity of the Hong Kong locals which is highly different with the Chinese (which they formed their nationalism identity in the early 20th century and in the Sino-Japanese War), the identity was further evaluated to a conflict of the Hongkongese between Anglo-Hongkongese and Sino-Hongkongese.

Is Hong Kong an anglicised society? Or is Hong Kong not an anglicised society? In concerning the Hennessy Reform and its influence in decades, the answer for both questions could be concluded as a “No”. As mentioned, the Hong Kong unique creole culture (as their Malaysian relatives created their own in a more complicated process) was formed because of the Hennessy Reform, it was certainly influenced a lot by the British values. Furthermore, it could be described as a variant of British culture, the one with huge east Asian (or specifically Cantonese) influence which at the same time Hong Kong was as a far-east British city because of the same reason. As if it was corrected, Hong Kong supposed to be an anglicised society — then how could it be just almost anglicised? In the 1950s following the end of the Chinese civil war, numbers of Chinese and Cantonese refugees arrived Hong Kong. Most of the refugees were not like the locals, they did not share the same experience of anglicisation in the pre-war era, and instead they were receiving the ideology of Chinese nationalism. Conflicts happened and this population was “diluting” the Hong Kong creole culture until the refugees was then socialised to the society and their siblings received the similar “colonial education” as the locals afterwards.

However, a more serious problem is that some refugees are scholars but at the same time a Chinese nationalist. These scholars tended to apply their Sinocentric perspective in promoting their wishes — make Hong Kong a base for the Chinese renaissance. Referring to the Hennessy Reform and the “respond” from the British government, Hong Kong was maintained as a base for promoting British values. The conflict at the end was spilt the locals into two major groups — the relatively Anglo-locals and the relatively Sino-locals. Even though, only few of them could be free from the British influence or specifically mentioned as the creole culture, as the Malaysian, Hong Kong formed its own code-mixing language between mostly Cantonese and English.

The Hongkongese Language, or code-mixing language between Cantonese and English, is a language commonly spoken, and written in literature and pop songs not late than 1920s (Cheng, 2012). The language was viewed as the most comfortable language for the locals to use and master daily (comparing with English and “pure Cantonese”), and might be the real mother tongue of the Hong Kong locals (So, 1992). However, it was often ignored by scholars with sinocentric perspective or intellectuals who suggested the movement of “Purification of the Cantonese Language” since late 1970s (Cheng, 2012), for example, a well-known politician and journalist Emily Wai-hing Lau, JP proposed to ban on using code-mixing language in the Legislative Council of Hong Kong. Indeed, the different between the two major local groups were the awareness of the British influence and their sense of belongings.

Thus, Hong Kong was one hand anglicised and in the other one was not, which the more proper description would be “an almost anglicised society” instead of either a pure British or a pure Cantonese/Chinese society. The situation of Hong Kong could be concluded in one quote given by a local Eurasian in Hong Kong in the 1950s, he stated that “Hong Kong is our home, it is our only country for we are not accepted anywhere else. We belong to it. We do not belong wholly either to China or to Europe” (Ingrams, 1952). Even not all Hong Kong locals are ethnical Eurasian, the locals are however Eurasian culturally in many different perspectives.

Statue of Sir John P. Hennessy in Mauritius, the colony he governed after Hongkong.

Reference 1. A. Sweetings, Education in Hong Kong pre-1841 to 1941: fact & opinion, Hong Kong: Hong Kong University Press, 1990.

2. C.H.M. Cheng, “Xiānggǎng chéngshì shī yǔ bàn táng fān yǔyán (lit. Hong Kong City Poetry and the Language mixed between the East and West),” in Journal of Modern Chinese Studies, Vol. 2, 2012, p.85- 91.

3. C. T. Smith, “The Hong Kong Situation as it Influenced the Protestant Church,” in Smith, Chinese Christian: Elites, Middlemen, and the Church in Hong Kong (Hong Kong: Hong Kong University Press, 2005).

4. D. W. C. So, “Language-based bifurcation of secondary schools in Hong Kong: past, present & future,” in Luke, Into the twenty first century: issues of language in education in Hong Kong (Hong Kong: Hong Kong University Press, 1992).

5. E. P. Owen, N. C. Owen & F. J. F. Tingay, Public Affairs for Hong Kong, Hong Kong: Oxford University Press, 1973.

6. Hong Kong Government, Administrative Report (Government Notification №158), Hong Kong: Hong Kong Government, 1881.

7. Hong Kong Government, Administrative Report (Government Notification №276), Hong Kong: Hong Kong Government, 1882.

8. Hong Kong Government, Administrative Report (Government Notification №84), Hong Kong: Hong Kong Government, 1883.

9. H. Ingrams, Hong Kong, U.K.: HMs Stationery Office, 1952.H. Lo, An investigation of the origins of the Hundred Yue People, Taiwan: Guoli bianyiguan zhonghua congshu bianshen weiyuanhui, 1955.

10. J. Fang, “The Vernacular Normal School for Women (1920–1941): The Sole Female Teacher Training Institute in Hong Kong,” in New Horizons in Education, Vol. 48, 2003, p.56–63.

11. J. Fang & L. He, “Government Normal School (1881–1883): The First Teacher Education Institute in Hong Kong,” in Educational Research Journal, Vol. 16(2), 2001, p.315–330.K. Kumar, “Empire and English nationalism,” in Journal of the Association for the Study of Ethnicity and Nationalism, Vol. 12(1), 2006, p.1–13.

12. K.M.A. Barnett, “Hong Kong before the Chinese: the frame, the puzzle and the missing pieces: a lecture delivered on 18th November 1963,” in Journal of the Hong Kong Branch of the Royal Asiatic Society, Vol. 4, 1964, p.42–67.

13. K. Wellings, “Empire-nation: national and imperial discourses in England,” in Journal of the Association for the Study of Ethnicity and Nationalism, Vol. 8(1), 2002, p.95–109.

14. R. J. Horrocks, “The Guangzhou-Hongkong strike, 1925–1926 :Hongkong workers in an anti-Imperialist movement,” in PhD thesis of University of Leeds, 1994.

15. S. Evans, “Language policy in British colonial education: evidence from nineteenth century Hong kong,” in Journal of Educational Administration and History, Vol. 38(3), 2006, p.293–312.

16. T. Walsh, “The National System of Education, 1831–2000,” in Walsh, Essays in the History of Irish Education, U.K.: Palgrave Macmillan Limited, 2016.

17. W. Y. Lo, “Colonialism and the Development of Teacher Education in Hong Kong,” in Education Journal of the Chinese University of Hong Kong, Vol. 42(2), 2014, p.51–72.

18. Y. Zou, “The British Empire Exhibition at Webley and British imperial identity in the South China Morning Post,” in Mathews, Islands and Britishness: a global perspective, U.K.: Cambridge Scholars Publishing, 2012.