Records of city's past are Hongkongers' birthright
If truth is the first casualty of war, history can be another. Hong Kong is an example, thanks to Japanese occupiers who rampaged through government and commercial offices, destroying records as a means of disrupting society and commerce. Much of historical value that had been kept during the territory's first century disappeared. Later the colonial government made a point of keeping highly detailed transcripts of meetings and events. As a result sensitive archival papers classified for 30 years come to light each year. The insight they give into policies and decisions that shaped our city serves to underline the tragic documentary void left by war.
Sadly, since the handover there is little evidence the government has recognised the importance to future generations of preserving records of policy development and actions. Anecdotal evidence is that post-1997 record-keeping is patchy, which calls to mind the saying that those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat its mistakes. Archivists, historians and researchers are also concerned by the failure of all but a few companies to set up archives to catalogue and process important material. They not only lose corporate knowledge, but do a disservice to the study of Hong Kong's history. So significant has been the role of corporations in our social and commercial history that it is arguable that in many cases their records would be more important than the government's.
Notable exceptions to corporate indifference include the Kadoorie family companies, HSBC and Deacons, the city's oldest law firm. After Michael Kadoorie, chairman of CLP Holdings, found a treasure trove of records inside the St George's Building in Central, he set up the Hong Kong Heritage Project to manage archival material and research the city's history. This led to the founding of the Business Records Group chaired by HSBC archives manager Helen Swinnerton, who rightly says that because of companies' unique involvement in the development of Hong Kong, they have a shared obligation to the city's history.
In 1970, the HSBC became the first local company to set up its own archives, now a magnet for economic researchers, architectural historians, the public and schoolchildren. In 2003, Deacons employees came across forgotten boxes of records of property deals, wills and the like going back to 1851 which escaped the attention of the Japanese. The firm now regards them, rightly, as part of Hong Kong's heritage, to be preserved as archives at considerable expense.
Most companies established after the war have yet to recognise the value of archives. Thankfully, the records group reports signs that this is changing. Swire Pacific, which keeps records in London, is also considering launching an archive here. That would set a good example. It is time for the government to follow suit. Unlike the mainland, Taiwan and Macau, Hong Kong does not have an archive law requiring the orderly preservation of documents, whether for public eyes now or later. Instead, civil servants have guidelines about what to send to the Government Records Office. They are not bound to do it; nor can the office make requests, raising a question mark over something which, in an open society, should be the birthright of future generations - a record of their past.
Events since the handover are fundamental to Hong Kong's destiny. Without an archives law and greater corporate civic-mindedness, Hongkongers will be at a disadvantage when it comes to learning from the past and building on the foundations of society.
