5:5).
Self-government
In considering the problem of popular government for terri- tories like Hongkong, it is important that we should begin with an accurate sense of values. There is a tendency to evalue self-government as something necessary for all peoples in all circumstances, as the panacea for all the miseries, and as some- thing that all people ardently desire. None of these premises is necessarily true. Self-govern- ment-independence-is good.
All peoples are entitled to try to govern themselves, make their own mistakes and arrive at their own ideas of social, political and economic paradise. Colonial government is mostly bad. Even if efficient and honest, it is, almost invariably unprogressive. Observe how America, Australia, the Philip- pines and other territories developed and forged ahead when the repressive hand of the old proprietors was removed. Even happy-go-lucky Shanghai used to make Hongkong seem dead.
But acceptable self-govern- ment requires two bases at least. It requires a population with community of interest, and it requires to be reasonably self-contained. Any arrange- ment whereunder the community is defined as a number of con- flicting groups, all to be repre- sented, is not self-government if those groups are not entirely indigenous. In Hongkong these two bases are lacking. There never was a more divided com- munity nor a community more subject to outside influences and interests. Hongkong cannot have self-government, because it has no self. Can we create a self? It is very doubtful.
If not self-government, then what can we have? The choice seems to be government by professional administrators ap- pointed by a God in London or elsewhere, or government by local and absentee interests, commercial or political. The choice is controlled by one great consideration responsibility. The professional administrators are responsible to the British people. The interests are res- ponsible only to themselves or their backers.
What are the defects of the colonial system to which Hong- kong objects? Principally lack of enterprise and no lack of privilege. Do these defects justify revolutionary changes? Because of the dangers of such changes the answer must be in the negative. All that we really want is a system that will pro- duce efficiency and justice, social and economic, We are concerned more with the effects of system rather than with its form. We can, with the assistance of the British elector, eliminate ed by the State legislation. It some evils without constitutional can then be duplicated as needed, change, simply by ensuring that district by district. Being but representatives of the com- supplementary, its composition munity appointed as our mouth- should cause no headache. It pieces are truly representative, should not be unwieldy. It not merely of numbers, but of should be elected by residents viewpoints દર્દી responsibility of sufficient years' standing, within a responsibility. The whether they be ratepayers, or Official majority is an essential taipans or coolies. Its decisions safe-guard against disaster. should all be subject to review A "municipal council" is by the Parliament (Legislative premature and may be super- Council). Much more difficult fluous-even mischievous. Ato constitute the Parliament: municipal council must be but to elect a few unofficials to supplementary to, but not a a Legislative Council as we have substitute for a satisfactory known it is surely a less trouble- Legislative Council. It will be some problem than trying to set useless without a satisfac- up a 48-member "municipal" tory Council. Its function would body of too much yet too little or should be to operate the power, and doomed to be futile. public services in manner direct-
Morning
8. Sarhawk 194-
DEMOS.
Page 75Page 76