FED 36/400/01
fent
し
Page 58
24th November, 1965.
I am very sorry indeed that you have not had an earlier reply to your letter of the 26th May about the future of the Urban Council and local government generally. As Carter explained to you in the short discussion you had with him on these matters during your visit here in October, these last few months have been difficult for those of us handling Hong Kong affairs. But it is nevertheless regrettable that we did not send you earlier such comments as we were in a position to let you have, particularly the views of the Foreign Office.
We agree with your statement, as set out on pages 4 and 5 of your letter, of the reasons for giving consideration to the problem and we find your proposals most interesting.
I think you will be glad to know straight away that we agree with you that they cannot reasonably be regarded as amounting to "major constitutional change." It is perhaps arguable that local government, being part of the machinery by which a country is governed, is part and parcel of its constitution. The argument for this proposition is strongest in cases where local government institutions are specifically linked with territory-wide institutions (e.g. local government bodies form electoral colleges or are in some other way the basis for representative institutions on a territorial basis). But for all practicel purposes in the colonial context we look upon "constitutions" of a non-federal nature as comprising the institutions of "national" or territory-wide significance.
What, however, would the attitude of the Chinese Government be likely to be? There might, for purely local reasons, be some inspired support from local communist circles for any group opposing your proposals for a particular area. But the Foreign Office view is, like yours, that the CPG is unlikely to object to your proposals in any way which would make it difficult for the Hong Kong Government to carry them through. Chinese reactions are always hard to predict, but it is considered that in this case they are unlikely to be moved unless they are looking for a bone of contention (of which there is always a goodly selection). The Foreign Office conclusion is stated as follows:-
"The Governor is surely right in saying that the thing to do is to proceed slowly and to make it clear from the outset that the functions of these new bodies are to be strictly limited to local government. An Urban Council already operates in Hong Kong and New Kowloon and new organisations to take account of the growing industrial centres in the New Territories are only logical. It is unlikely that the Chinese would see them as being the first step towards an independent Hong Kong."
We see no reason to disagree. The fact that local authorities are to be established in the New Territories by a distinct and separate ordinance may perhaps help to make it clear that local government developments in that area do not affect and are in no way related to the Colony's status or relationship with the United Kingdom.
Page 58
SIR DAVID TRENCH, KCNG, MC,
GOVERNMENT HOUSE,
HONG KONG.
SECRET
Page 58
/Carter
Page 59 934436/400/01
Sir David Trench
SECRET
Page 59 24th Nove 56 of 34965.
November,
Carter gathered from his discussions with you that the legislation you have in mind for this purpose would indicate in broad terms the types of local authorities to be established and would set out the range of powers which could be given to them. There would be provision to establish the authorities by instrument, and the instrument would in each case specify the powers granted (which would vary according to the size and functions of the authority). This is a pattern of local authority legislation familiar to us and it seems quite appropriate that it should be used in Hong Kong. Carter gathered also that, in your present view, it would be necessary to let the Urban Council continue under its own legislation. It would perhaps be inviting trouble to dislodge the Urban Council from its special position at the same time as you curb its aspirations.
The foregoing will, by implication, have indicated fairly clearly that we support your thesis that the Hong Kong Urban Council should not be allowed to spread its authority to the new urban areas and that a local authority pattern should be established for the New Territories. We also endorse your view that when this general local authority framework has been constructed there might be a cautious approach to broadening the Urban Council's functions and modernising its constitution.
No doubt there will be a careful examination of the role of local government in Hong Kong as part of your consideration of the whole problem. This should indicate what powers and responsibilities it would be appropriate to give the Urban Council. On the face of it its present responsibilities cover a very limited and rather humdrum field. If there is scope for giving it wider functions and some greater measure of financial responsibility this should help to allay some of its present discontent.
We shall be glad to assist your further examination of these proposals in any way we can. We may have something of more concrete value to contribute when you have set down your ideas in greater detail. In particular, it might at a later stage be useful if you were to establish contact, either direct or through us, with C. A. 3. Wallis, the Local Government Adviser, who is now in the ODM.
You will, I imagine, be discussing your ideas with Mrs White during her visit in January. We shall brief her about this correspondence. You will no doubt also be discussing with her the perennial question whether there are any possibilities, within the present framework, of associating the people more closely with the government of the territory (I am quoting from her reply to Mr Rankin on the 26th November, 1964).
Sgd
(W. I. J. Wallace)