9
This is not quite Pri C. th
-mente wants
to fix apart
q.
GOV.
Secret.
25.3.30.
(Submits for consideration views on protection of
Anglo-Chinese in "alaya, and considers the conditions should be the same as those obtaining in Hong Kong.)
There are two separate points here: (1)
the position of Chinese who are "British protected mersons", (2) the question of the point in descent
(if any) at which formal (Chinese) denationalization
should not be demanded of persons of Chinese race.
The second question has already been raised,
in similar terms, in the despatch written by
at ufted Chinor Sir C. Clementi as Governor of Hong Kong (9th January,
Ruritat in Melaye 230,
Ball & Lon
Alimos retirality without donatination
-
4 on 72770). Sir. Lampson has asked Dr. "ang
for a clear statement regarding the position of the children of denationalised Chinese.
diastinaly lin
Pii M. Lenfon
in his mirro surventes that caine and
u do not I think inhoud to revin
it.
x §3
X
i.e. as a
subject of one
of
"tle several
princes and
(8 on 72770)
Asregards British protected persons, it will
be seen from page 4 of th Foreign Office memoran dum of 4th February, 1928, (in 9 on 52710/28), that, under the latest consular instructions (in 1928), subjects of the aluy States may receive protection in China as British protected persons. Presumably "subjects" means
those to whom the Government concerned issues passports,
since there appears to be no nationality law in this
(There is a Naturalization Enactment in the Federated Malay Stats 22 of 1904, cony herewith.)
"British subject" as defined in the China
case.
C
Order in Council"includes "a British protected person, that is to say, a person who either (a) is a native of
any Protectorate of His "ajesty, and is for the time
being in China; or (b) by virtue of section 15 of the Foreign jurisdiction Act, 1890, or otherwise enjoys
X
His Majesty's protection in China".
Thus, there is no
states in India" nrovision for subjects of any Protectorate who become
such by naturalization.
The