國民黨在香港的組織、活動與困境（1949—1970）

Abstract

1949年兩岸分治後，國共兩黨都難以繼續在對方地盤活動。雙方同樣選擇在香港開展各種工作。學界過往有不少研究處理中共在香港歷史，但國民黨在港的討論寥寥可數，且僅針對單一議題。有鑒於此，本文以國民黨在香港的歷史為主題，討論1949年至1970年國民黨在香港的群眾工作、黨員訓練、秘密情報工作等，同時探討當中的困境。 本研究正文共四章。第一章勾勒1949年前後的歷史背景，簡述當時香港的政治和經濟狀況、國共對港政策和組織演變，以及英國和香港政府對待國共兩黨的態度。第二章處理國民黨的宣傳手段、群眾工作、政治活動，以及黨員訓練，分析這些工作的內容和成效。第三章關注國民黨在香港的地下活動，包括利用香港作中轉站派員潛入大陸，甚至在香港發動破壞活動等。由於遭到香港政府的鎮壓，加上情報組織內部問題，國民黨在香港的地下活動終告失敗。第四章總結國民黨在香港活動的成果和歷史意義。期待通過本文，彌補學界過往對國民黨在港歷史的關注不足。

Following the cross-strait division in 1949, both the Kuomintang (KMT) and the Communist Party of China (CPC) were unable to continue activities in their respective opponent’s territory; however, both parties engaged in various kinds of operations in Hong Kong. In previous scholarship, the majority of historical studies have primarily focused on CPC activities in Hong Kong, while a mere few have been regarding the KMT. In view of this, this paper discusses mass works, member training and secret intelligence, and the difficulties faced by the KMT in Hong Kong from 1949 to 1970. The main body of this paper consists of four chapters. Chapter 1 outlines the historical background around 1949 with emphasis placed on the political and economic situation of Hong Kong, the evolution of both policies and organization within the KMT and the CPC, and the attitudes held by the British and Hong Kong governments towards the two parties. Chapter 2 analyzes the content and effectiveness of specific KMT operations—propaganda, mass works, political activities and party member training. Chapter 3 discusses the underground activities of the KMT in Hong Kong, including the use of Hong Kong as a transfer point for the dispatching of spies to mainland China and even the launch of activities designed to sabotage within Hong Kong. However due to the suppression by the Hong Kong government and internal problems within the intelligence organization, the underground activities engaged in by the KMT failed. Finally, Chapter 4 summarizes the consequences as well as the historical significance of KMT activities in Hong Kong. The author anticipates this paper will help in filling in the lack of attention given by scholarship regarding the Kuomintang in Hong Kong, and more broadly, the history of Hong Kong.