<論説>世紀転換期香港の衛生政策をめぐる議論 : 中国人の居住環境の改善と経済的自由主義

Abstract

本稿は、世紀転換期の香港における衛生政策、特に中国人の居住環境に対する政策の特徴とそれをめぐる議論を明らかにするものである。行論では、種々の調査委員会による調査報告書や潔浄局・立法局での衛生関連条例の制定における議論を分析した。香港政庁は居住環境の改善において財政面や中国人社会への配慮を踏まえて効率的な政策を実施した。また、その費用を家屋所有者に負わせる方針をとっており、これは本国イギリスより中央集権的で経済的自由主義に介入するものだった。オープンスペースに関する家屋所有者の反発は受け入れられなかったが、弁護士や医師など専門職の立法局非官守議員からも反発を受けたキュービクルの問題の解決策に関して、政庁は政策を一部修正し費用負担を認めた。これは、彼らが政庁の主導による衛生行政体制を支持していたためであり、彼らの存在は政庁にとって無視できない重要なものとなっていた。

The studies of the history of public health in Hong Kong under British rule have analyzed how Chinese society in Hong Kong reacted to the policy of the Hong Kong government, the local governing body of the British, until the time of the plague epidemic in 1894. On the other hand, the administration and policy on public health after the plague epidemic have not been sufficiently addressed in prior studies, and only a summary overview of their progress has been made. However, public health policy and its administration in Hong Kong in the first half of the twentieth century affected diverse aspects of Hong Kong society, including the Chinese community, the British community and the business community of westerners and Chinese. This article analyzes public health policy in Hong Kong after the plague, especially the characteristics of the policy regarding the housing environment of the Chinese and the discussion about it from the viewpoint of its effect on economic liberalism. The first section surveys the situation of the housing environment of the Chinese at the end of the nineteenth century. The problem most often discussed in regard to the housing environment of the Chinese was the lack of the sunshine and ventilation. Because three or four-story buildings in the Chinese residential area were densely built, it was important to expand open spaces. Moreover, the existence of "cubicles" small spaces without windows inside these houses was also a problem. The second section analyzes the principle the Hong Kong government used in deciding the policy for the expansion of open spaces and the solution of the cubicle problem from 1896 to 1903. After the plague epidemic, the government carried out land resumption in the Taipingshan District, where many of the plague victims had resided. But some colonial bureaucrats were strongly concerned that the resumption of land would aversely affect public finances. As a result of the report from the Insanitary Properties Commission in 1898, the government adopted a policy having property owners bear the cost for the improvement to existing houses throughout Hong Kong, and a series of ordinances relating to public health was established and then amended. This policy did not bring about change even when Osbert Chadwick, a famous civil engineer sent from the Britain, had proposed the land resumption.

The third section analyzes how Hong Kong society reacted to the ordinances enacted from 1906 to 1908 by using reports of the commissions or committees, the hansards of the Legislative Council, newspapers and so on. As the report of the commission of enquiry looking into public health and the buildings ordinance of 1907 shows, property owners objected to the policy of expanding open spaces from the perspective of economic liberalism and protecting their own interests. The government, however, did not change the policy. On the other hand, the problem of the cubicles was widely discussed among the government, property owners and professionals among the unofficial members of the Legislative Council who played an especially important role. They proposed a plan to demolish of the upper floors of unsanitary houses, and through the report of the Cubicle Committee in 1907, the plan was incorporated as an amendment to the public health and the buildings ordinance in 1908. Moreover, in debating the ordinance, professionals among the unofficial members of the Legislative Council succeeded in having the government bear a portion of the cost. This was because they emphasized the improvement of sanitary conditions and were strongly aware of the necessity of the government taking the initiative for sanitary administration. At the turn of the century, the Hong Kong government selected the most efficient policy for involving Chinese society by taking into consideration financial aspects and the Chinese community. In addition, the ordinances they enacted interfered with economic liberalism because the cost of improvements burdened property owners. It can be said that ordinances relating to public health in Hong Kong were more centralized than those in Britain and that they had a great influence on both Westerners and Chinese. This article makes clear that in this situation, the claims of property owners were not accepted by the government as they had been before the plague epidemic, and that professionals among the unofficial members of the Legislative Council, to whom many scholars have paid little or no attention, had a certain degree of influence and power.