Yu Hang
arrived 24.9.65.
2.
Lin Ching
#
24.9.65.
3. Ching Hui-ch'in
3.4.64.
.
4.
Li Fu
"
12.7.63.
5. Wang Tuan-sheng
13.11.64.
I
DA NEWS AGENCY
15 May
-
BULLETIN
Statement of Chinese Foreign Ministry of 15 May.
"On the afternoon of May 6, 1967, Chinese workers
of the Hong Kong Sanpo Kong Artificial Plastic Flower
works launched a struggle against intensified capitalist
exploitation. To shield capital and suppress labour,
the British authorities in Hong Kong brazenly turned
out on the same day more than two hundred armed policemen
and "riot police," sanguinarily suppressing the workers
of the factory and other Chinese residents, beating and
wounding many of them and arresting twenty-one persons.
Afterwards, they also arrested the President of the
Federation of the Rubber and Plastic Trade Unions and
Workers' Representatives, who went to a Hong Kong police
atation to protest. On the afternoon of the 11th, the
British authorities in Hong Kong carried out another
sanguinary suppression on an even bigger scale by turning
loose on the bare-handed workers, representatives of
various circles and young students large numbers of armed troops,
policemen and "riot police" totalling more than 1,000, who repeatedly
attacked then with clubs, riot
guns and tear bombs and even turning out military vehicles
and helicopters. Many persons (including newsreel camera-
men and journalists) were arrested. After the 12th, the
/British
-2-
British authorities in Hong Kong atill continued large-
scale arrests of the demonstrating masses. By the
morning of the 14th, more than 400 have been arrested.
At present, the situation is still being aggravated.
It must be pointed out that these large-scale
sanguinary atrocities perpetrated by the British author-
ities in Hong Kong are the result of long premeditation
and are a component part of the British Government's
scheme of collusion with U.S. imperialiam against China.
On the one hand, in co-ordination with the U.S. imperialist
war escalation in Vietnam, the British Government is
continuing to provide the United States with Hong Kong
as a base for aggression against Vietnam in disregard of
the repeated solemn warnings of the Chinese Government,
and on the other, it is steadily stepping up various hostile
measures against China in Hong Kong. Particularly since
the unfolding of the great proletarian Cultural Revolution
in China, the British authorities in Hong Kong have carried
out repeated military and police manoeuvres hostile to China
and aimed at the sanguinary suppression of Chinese residents
in Hong Kong, vainly attempting to exclude the great influ-
ence of China's great proletarian Cultural Revolution by
high-handed tactics. The persecution of Chinese residents
and workers by the British authorities in Hong Kong by
making use of the labour-capital dispute of the Artificial
Plastic Flower works is a big exposure of this criminal
plan of sanguinary suppression. Their Fascist atrocities
have aroused boundless indignation among the Chinese
/residents
-3-
residents in Hong Kong and the entire Chinese people.
The Chinese Government hereby lodges the most urgent
and the strongest protest with the British Government
against these atrocities.
The sanguinary atrocities wholly perpetrated by
the British authorities in Hong Kong show that they
mortally fear and bitterly hate China's great proletarian
Cultural Revolution. This great revolutionary movement
which is without parallel in history has dealt a telling
blow to imperialism, modern revisionism and world reaction,
completely shattered their dream of counter-revolutionary
capitalist restoration in China and greatly encouraged
and impelled the liberation struggles of the oppressed
peoples and oppressed nations of the whole world. In
particular, this great revolutionary movement has caused
our Chinese compatriots in Hong Kong to love still more
ardently the thought of Mao Tse-tung and they are vigorously
unfolding the movement of creative study and application
of Chairman Mao's works. Armed with the ever-victorious
thought of Mao Tse-tung, the masses of our patriotic com-
patriots are more militant than even in fighting imperialism.
Frightened out of their wits by this, the British author-
ities in Hong Kong vainly attempted by violent suppression
to restrict the influence of Hao Tse-tung's thought and
to maintain their control, and thus committed the barbarous
Fascist atrocities."
/16 May
-4-
16 May
Following is the full text of a commentator's
article in the "People's Daily" on May 15, entitled
"The British Authorities in Hong Kong Must Rein in on
the Brink":
"The British authorities in Hong Kong have in the
past few days turned out large numbers of troops, police
and "riot police" and carried out bloody suppression
and frantic persecution of Chinese workers, representatives
of various circles and young students in Hong Kong.
As
a result, over 400 patriotic Chinese in Hong Kong were
arrested or brutally beaten up, and one of them died from
his injuries.
Boundless indignation and the most vehement protests
have been voiced by our Government and our entire people
at these Fascist atrocities perpetrated by the British
authorities in Hong Kong.
The sanguinary outrages staged by the British author-
ities in Hong Kong are carefully deliberated, organised
and planned atrocities, and they represent an insensate
provocation of the Chinese people on the part of the British
Government. Over the recent period, the British Government,
ignoring our Government's repeated warnings, has been
intensifying its efforts in the service of the U.S. aggressive
war against Vietnam, making available the use of the British
military installations in Hong Kong. It has also put into
effect many measures hostile towards our country and, trail-
ing in the wake of the U.S. imperialism, has carried out
/unbridled
-5-
unbridled anti-China activities.
In daring to set
itself up against the 700 million Chinese people and
serving as an anti-China hatchetman of U.S. imperialism,
the British Government can achieve only one end: that
ia, to lift a rock only to drop on its own feet."
24 HAT British Hong Kong Authorities perpetrate new
Fascist Atrocities in Hong Kong and Kowloon:
"At least 200 Chinese compatriots were killed or
seriously wounded in Hong Kong and Kowloon on May 22 as
the British authorities sent thousands of "riot police"
into the streets to slaughter workers and staff of Chinese
organisations in Hong Kong and compatriots of various
circles.
Many more suffered light injuries in the new bloody
Fascist atrocities. According to greatly minimised atat-
istics issued by the British authorities in Hong Kong on
the morning of May 23, 363 personnel of Chinese organis-
ations in Hong Kong and other compatriots were unreasonably
arrested on May 22. Nearly 200 of them were secretly
arrested by British Hong Kong special agents in the small
hours.
Arthur
The May 22 bloody incident occurred the day after
the British Government sent three big-shots
Galsworthy, Deputy Under-Secretary of State in the Common-
wealth Office; W. S. Carter, Head of the Hong Kong
Department of the Commonwealth Office, and E. Bolland,
Head of the Far Eastern Department in the Foreign Office
/to
-6-
to Hong Kong on May 21 to "discuss" the present
situation in Hong Kong with the British Hong Kong
'governor" David Trench. The British Government and
the British Hong Kong authorities can never evade
their responsibility. They are fully responsible for
the bloody incidents since May 4 including those of
May 6, May 11 and May 22, and for all the grave consequ-
ences arising therefrom",
May 24
-
Peking Rally Condemns British Fascist
Atrocities in Hong Kong:
"About 100,000 revolutionary people of all circles
in Peking held a rally on the afternoon of May 18 to
condem the British Government and the British author-
ities in Hong Kong for their fascist crime of bloody_
suppression of Chinese compatriots in Hong Kong. The
rally voiced resolute support for the May 15 statement
issued by the Chinese Foreign Ministry.
Thunderous shouts of "The British imperialists must repay their blood
debts!", "We pledge to give powerful
backing to the patriotic compatriots in Hong Kong!",
"Strike down anyone who dares to oppose the patriotic
compatriots in Hong Kong in studying and propagating
Mao Tse-tung's thought!", and "Those who oppose China will
come to no good end!", filled the Peking Workers' Stadium
throughout the rally,
The atrocities of the British Hong Kong authorities
in suppressing patriotic Chinese in Hong Kong by armed
/force
-7-
force have aroused tremendous anger among the
revolutionary masses in the Chinese capital.
More
than a million Peking residents demonstrated before
the British Chargé d'Affaires' Office in Peking during
the past few days.
Today's mass rally sternly warned the British
imperialists that they would come to no good and in
their collusion with U.S. imperialism and the Chiang
Kai-shek gang to oppose China, and that they would
never succeed by using violence in limiting the influence
of the great thought of Mao Tse-tung."
20
Reference
FC 313
The Bolly
I alled a dratt bein
I
سان
NCIA replacement. I have also
the NCIA
suggerlezt
alleration
pant whack
Submerican
t
pencil
Sot si lattur
were allachec
of Flag K.
The
Mr. Wate
We spotu.
Separati draft minati
with amendment's
Please keyp
разпрос
I have submitted
26
hi Yo de la Mor
In the Talking Printi dap.
ар
Jon
28
NOTHING TO BE WRITTEN IN THIS MARGIN
THE GOMA
Registry No.
DRAFT
Submission
Type 1 +
To:
From
Mr. Bolland
Top Secret. Secret.
Couldential.
Restricted Unclassifed.
Mr. de la Vare
Note
Telephone No. & Ert
Department
ACTION AGAINST THE N-W CHINA NELS AGENCY
1
Hag
K
Off. de in More's
5 June
sched submission/deals with the
problem of whether or not to take action
against the London Offices of the New China News Agency (NCNA), The
Secretary of State
has alread, agreed to talk to the Home
Secretary about this as soon as possible.
Since that submission was written a more
CHEB
immediate roblem has arisen.-
is dis-
cussed below.
Problem
2.
کہ
The Chinese applied for a visa for
Chinese
a few member of the NCMA office in London
has been I June A decision on this visa as held
in suspense while waiting a ministerial
decision on the whole question of the NČNA
Office in Londón. It has already been recom-
mended that in talking to the Home Secretary,
the Secretary of State should seek his
agreement to take urgent action against the
NONA Office if necessary but no immediate
action is foreseen. We must now decide
what to do about the one visa application
hich is pending.
Recommendation
I recommend that the visa should be
Karm-11
3.
Japore of
approved sithouch
further two weeks.
+
further period of
/news
two
Ske,
Background and Argueent
4.
The number of Chinese staff working
at the London Office of NCNA at the beginning
or May
ty was eight. Three of these left for
Peking on
26
May On I Finge
we received a
vise application for one replacement. A
decision on this was held up since Ministers
were then discussing the question of whether
to take action against the NCNA Office as a
whole.
5.
In dealing with this visa application
there are three possible lines of action:
(a) we can refuse to grant the visa;
(b) we can grant it after a further
6.
delay; M
(c) we can grant the vise immediately.
If we refuse to grant a visa we are
not obliged to give any reasons to the Chinese
but it would be the first occasion on which we
the
had done so for many years and we could
expect the Chinese to retaliate in some way
They might either cause difficulties for Reuters correspondent resident
in Peking
(e.g.suspending his residence permit or
refusing to grant an exit permit etc.) or they
might take action directly against one of our
diplomatic staff. In such a situation there
is a strong possibility that we would become
involved in a battle of visa refusals out of
which we would be the most likely losers since
our staff in Peking, with its limited number
of Chinese speakers, is more vulnerable than
the Chinese here. There is also the possibility
/that
NOTHING TO BE WRITTEN IN THIS MARGIN
16073009 Gp.863
Fly
NOTHING TO BE WRITTEN IN THIS MARGIN
If thes
is greed, the S-of S
many with to refer
نیا
it in his walk with
fof Jenkin. Pragnyly of the Talking Poin
redraftend
evor this question.
that such a visa battle might spill over into
other spheres and cause farther administrative
harassment for our office in Peking.
7. If we impose a further delay
approving or
this via the Chinese may
before
again reciprocate/in some fay against/our
Vission in Péking but are likely to do so (in a len drastic farther.
One advantage of/delaying
would be that it will indicate Дuite clearly
to the Chinese
we have our eye on the
NONA office in London and is activities.
I doubt if this will cause much difference
flady to the
맛다.
material o put out by
the NCNA since this brazdy produced
1 Peking for world-fide distribution,
at least
but it willen ndicate that such
eeftus of the Chinese Government are
vulnerable
8.
For these reasons quä aina
F
organs
I do not think that we should embark
on a vise war. Nor do I consider that we
should allɗw a new NCNA man in without
further marking our displeasure of the NINA
I donsider therefore that the wisest course
would be to approve the vise but imposs
sayy
further administrative delays twote
weeks,
>
In
Wil
Mr Bollantil
COVERING SECRET
RECEIVE ARCHIVES No90 5.
JUL 1967
F23/201
I attach a record of the meeting between Mr. Rodgers and the Home
Secretary about the possible expulsion of the New China News Agency.
Richard Sammel
(R.C. Samuel) 30 May, 1967.
ce Mode la thane
it Bolland
Av. Denson
Pl. attach the
M.
and
in preparing the latest Submimmi
ん
like into accant
بولی
31,
thei
pe.
SECRET
RECENE WH
ARCHIVES NE31
3 JUL 1967
F23/1/2010
Possible expiusion of New China News Agency
Discussion between Mr. Rodgers and Mr. Jenkins
Those Present:-
Mr. Roy Jenkins, M.P. Mr. John Harris
Officials
Mr. Willian Rodgers, M.P.,
The meeting took place in the Home Office at 5.30 p.m. on 25 May,
Mr. Rodgers explained that we wished to consider expelling some or all
of the staff of the New China News Agency from London as retaliation for
the outrages recently commited by the Chinese.
2.
Mr. Jenkins said that the Home Office had never so far expelled
journalists from London for political reasons; the then Home Secretary
had declined à request from the Commonwealth Secretary some years
previously to expelt a Greek journalist who had been writing stories
which amounted to incitement to violence in Cyprus. If, as ne assumed,
our expulsion of the N.C.N.A. was intended as a public relations
exercise, he considered that the Government would get a very bad press.
Mr. Jenkins thought that the press would take a poor view of journalists
being ejected rather than diplomats, when the reason was basically a
diplomatic
one.
3. Mr. Rodgers pointed out (i) that we needed to consider appropriate
measures against the Chinese which would make clear our indignation at
their recent activities. But we did not wish to do anytning which would
have unacceptable consequences for our Mission in Peking or for Hong
Kong. Expulsion of Chinese dipomats from London would, we thought,
escalate and we should be the losers; (ii) that recent N.C.N.A.
propaganda had been unacceptably abusive; it went far beyond the proper
activities of a news agency; and the completely false report of 200
deaths in the Hong Kong disturbances had almost certainly contributed to
the violent treatment of the British diplomats in Shanghai.
/^.
SECRET
SECRET
4.
Un (i) above, Mr. Jenkins asked if we could be sure that only the
Reuters representative in Peking would be expelled as
counter-retaliation. Was there not a danger
that expulsion of N.C.N.A. would escalate anyway? Mr. John Harris
pointed out that the Reuter's man in Peking was very highly thought of
and that the reaction to his removal as a result of Britisn Government
action would probably be strong. On (ii) Mr. Jenkins said he was dubious
about the value of expelling Chinese journalists from London when the
places affected by the recent distur bances had been Shanghai and Hong
Kong.
5. An official then pointed out another difficulty which the Home Office
saw in expelling members of the N.C.N.A. in London. If our aim was to
stop the operation of the agency, we nad to face the fact that the Home
Office had no powers to close it down as such; and there would be
nothing to stop the Chinese from recruiting more staff from the 2,500
Chinese resident in England.
6. Mr. Jenkins asked if our purpose would not be served by expelling the
Information Officer or some other diplomat from the Chinese Mission
here. Mr. Rodgers repeated our view that the danger of "diplomatic
escalation" was unacceptable. Mr. Jenkins then argued (on the lines of
the Times leader of 25 May) that our best posture would be to play the
thing cool. Would not expulsion of the N.C.N.A. be a rather inadequate
gesture? He then reiterated the difficulties that might be created for
us by appeals against expulsion to the London magistrates.
7. There was then some discussion about the possibility of not renewing
the permits of N.C.N.A. officials when they were due to be replaced. The
problem here was that we needed to be able to make a quick gesture if we
were to do anything at all. When the time eventually came for the Home
Secretary to justify his refusal to renew a permit for a Chinese
journalist the case would have become stale and justification would be
that much more difficult.
8. Mr. Jenkins asked what damage expulsion of the N.C.N.A. from London
would do to Peking. Mr. Rodgers described the importance to them of
their operation in Africa which was largely controlled from the London
office. Mr. Jenkins's point about "playing it cool" Mr. Rodgers
On
SECRET
/said
SECRET
1
said we should bear in mind the damage the Portuguese had done to their
position in Macao by not reacting with sufficient firmness to Chinese
provocations.
9. Mr. Jenkins asked for Mr. Rodgers's views on a possible time-table if
it was decided to pursue the idea of expelling N.C.N.A. staff in spite
of the difficulties he had outlined. Mr. Rodgers said it would depend on
the view the Secretary of State took of the situation when he returned
from Moscow. If there were no further Chinese outrages it was possible
that he would not wish to take any action for the moment. If there were,
Mr. Brown would probably wish to move quickly.
<
Richard Jamuel
(R.U.Samuel)
26 May, 1967
la
see later
later submis
SECRET
led
14/2