Refugees and neutral territories: Hong Kong and Macau during World War II
Studies of neutrality tend to focus on legal and diplomatic aspects, but there is also an important social dimension: neutral territories are often destinations or stopovers for refugees, especially when these territories are adjacent to conflict zones. What does neutrality mean in practice when we put refugees at the centre of analysis? British-ruled Hong Kong and Portuguese-ruled Macau in the 1930s and 1940s offer connected case studies of displaced persons during the Second World War in East Asia, as I have explored in a recent article. I build on Elizabeth Sinn’s conceptualisation of Hong Kong as an ‘in-between place’ for migrants and goods and information associated with them, and apply it to the specific context of neutrality during the war not only in Hong Kong but also in its connected neighbour, Macau. I rethink neutrality as a temporal experience: a fragile ‘in-between time’ marked by uncertainty and opportunity that could end at any moment—as it did in Hong Kong.
Although there were experiences of displacement in China in the first years of the Japanese invasion that started in 1931, the scale of refugee flight rose dramatically from the start of an all-out war in July 1937. Territories under European colonial rule in China were technically neutral and became havens for many thousands of refugees, most, but not all, of whom were Chinese. In my case studies, the movement of refugees in the late 1930s was especially linked to the battle of Shanghai in 1937 and the occupation of a significant part of Guangdong province (including its capital, Guangzhou), that bordered Hong Kong and Macau, in 1938. When Hong Kong was occupied by Japan in late 1941, many people left for neighbouring Macau, which remained officially neutral until the end of the war, though not completely immune to growing interference on the part of Japanese forces. Enduring connections between the two territories also shaped escape routes, ensuring that the circulation of people continued even in times of heightened restrictions. Many of those who left Macau headed to the French leased territory of Guangzhouwan (under the nominally neutral rule of the collaborationist Vichy regime until 1945 but de facto controlled by Japan after 1943). There were routes into unoccupied China from Guangzhouwan or from Macau, while other refugees left directly to ‘Free China’ from Hong Kong.
Without considering the movement and presence of refugees in Hong Kong and Macau, it is impossible to understand these territories’ experience of neutrality (which in the case of Hong Kong ended abruptly with occupation). Contrasting the cases of these territories – which are rarely analysed together – highlights a number of similarities, some of which are arguably also applicable to other neutral cities that refugees transited or moved to during World War II, such as Lisbon.
Both Hong Kong and Macau saw a massive increase in population. Hong Kong’s population doubled to 1.6 million people between 1937 and 1941, while Macau’s population tripled from 1937 to 1945, reaching half a million. Those displaced by the violence of war in mainland China came from all social strata, and shaped a variety of social, economic, educational, and cultural activities. Urban spaces during the years of neutrality were transformed by refugees: from the redeployment of schools, hotels, clubs and other places to host displaced persons to the visible presence of many destitute refugees on the streets, from the creation of new commercial and industrial ventures by and to cater to refugees to the relocation of educational institutions. For example, Lingnan University transferred part of its operations from Guangzhou to Hong Kong (and after the British colony was occupied, it moved to unoccupied areas in the mainland), while the Union Normal School moved from Guangzhou to Macau. Many cinema professionals from Shanghai moved to Hong Kong before 1941, playing a crucial role in the development of local film production and distribution. Refugee musicians and performers also arrived, particularly after the occupation of Hong Kong.
The response of colonial administrations to the arrival of an unprecedented number of refugees was not one of obvious welcome. While this had something to do with efforts to keep nominally neutral by not antagonising Japanese forces, it was primarily linked with the maintenance of colonial rule (itself threatened by Japanese military advances), anchored in national and racial hierarchies and discrimination. Poorer Chinese refugees in particular were met with colonial anxieties about the ability to control people that were linked to ideas of class and race. They were also the refugees most likely to be confined to camps outside the main urban areas, or singled out to be ‘sent back’ to their hometowns under occupation. The discourse of refugees as a ‘problem’, which would be common during the Cold War in Hong Kong, was already evident in the late 1930s in both territories.
How refugees experienced neutrality depended on perceptions of race, class and nationality. Wealthier or educated refugees who relocated or set up businesses and schools were more welcomed than destitute ones. In Macau, Portuguese refugees fleeing Shanghai, Guangzhou and, later, Hong Kong, were always privileged by colonial authorities vis-à-vis Chinese refugees. Wealth and personal connections could ease the difficult experience of moving to a neutral territory, or sustain one’s livelihood while there. For example, some refugees had overseas networks linked to migratory experiences before the war: these could be a crucial source of remittances.
Negative views of refugees were outweighed by an energetic civil society response. Old and new associations were set up to assist refugees, several also linked to Chinese resistance. Women and religious figures played important roles in several of these. The connections between relief and resistance also points towards the ambiguities of neutrality: many refugees were not ‘neutral’ towards the conflict that had disrupted their lives; they supported resistance to the Japanese invasion in different ways. An important case was the China Defence League (Baowei Zhongguo tongmeng), an umbrella organisation set up in Hong Kong that managed contributions from different parts of the world to assist Chinese refugees and support the resistance. Resistance activists of different political persuasions capitalised on the opportunities unintentionally offered by neutrality to fundraise, circulate information, and mobilise others for the cause. However, their freedom to operate in these neutral territories was also constrained by colonial controls, including censorship.
The social, spatial and temporal dimensions of neutrality in these two ‘in-between places’ (to which one could add the case of French-ruled Guangzhouwan) were profoundly connected to the realities of war, evident in aspects such as when and how refugees arrived (or left), where they stayed, and how they were perceived and received.
Further Reading
There is an important body of literature on refugees in Hong Kong in and after the Cold War. See, for example, the works by Laura Madokoro, Chi-Kwan Mark, Meredith Oyen or Terrence Chun Tat Shum.
The header image shows the front cover of The Hongkong Telegraph for Mon 30 May 1938, including the main article headline ‘TRANSPORTS HEADING FOR SOUTH CHINA – REFUGEES POUR INTO HONGKONG’
