Flag E
Flag F
(b) to continue existing policy on the matter
of asserting its authority within the area of the city, except for additional action against schools which do not meet the statutory fire protection requirements.
Although the letter does not specifically say so, it would seem that the recommendations in the paper enclosed with it are now approved policy, with the reservation that action against the schools is subject to the views of the Schools Steering Committee.
2.
For an understanding of these potentially sensitive proposals, I think the somewhat longer background note - paragraphs 1-18 of the enclosure to (76) on 63/65 papers is more useful in this context since it deals in greater detail with the steps taken by the Hong Kong Government to assert its jurisdiction in the city.
3. I see no great danger in the development proposals. The last Chinese protest (in 1963) stemmed from the implementation of development plans that involved clearance of a small part of city territory along the eastern boundary. The present plans avoid any encroachment. Mr. Garvey's views at (86) on 63/65 papers are of interest in this connection.
4. The proposal to take action to deal with schools in the city that are a fire hazard is a very different proposition. It raises two issues on which the C.P.G. could well prove sensitive on past performance. It means an extension of Government authority into the field of educational activity in the city where, as indicated in paragraph 5(b)(v) of the paper, interference has been minimal in the past. could involve the closure of communist schools, which events since 1967 have shown to be a particularly sensitive issue for local communists and C.P.G. alike. While in recent years China has acquiesced in the exercise of a growing measure of authority by the Hong Kong Government in the city, we cannot be sure that its acquiescence would extend to the closure of communist schools there.
I am therefore doubtful about the statement at the end of paragraph 4 in Mr. Maddocks' letter that this
is hardly a policy that the Communists or the Chinese Government could criticise".
It
5. On the other hand it is arguable that "a bit of a push" (as Mr. Maddocks describes this proposed extension of Government authority) is possible without giving rise to a serious reaction. The communists would not be in a strong position in opposing action against schools on these grounds; and inasmuch as independent as well as Communist schools must be affected it should not be difficult to counter any communist cry of "victimisation" or "discrimination".
6. One might wonder why those who drew up these proposals chose to pick on schools for the one departure from existing policy, instead of probing other fields in which the Government's authority might be extended. It suggests a certain obsession with the "menace" of the communist educational effort, because on the face of it the unregistered, sub- standard schools in the city are no worse a blot than the illegal buildings, unregistered doctors and dentists, unlicensed food premises, etc., that abound.
/ However,
...