No.98
/no doubt
This letter from Mr. Keswick, the Chairman
of the China Association, repeats the three points which Mr. Mitchell, the Secretary of the Association, made in his discussion last week with Mr. Mayle and myself (see my minute of 9th July).
The first point is that a Council of 30
members is too large. The reasons why Sir Mark Young eventually recommended this number are given fully in paragraph 1 of his despatch of the 22nd October, a copy of which is attached loose in the file. It is/true that in many ways a smaller number would have resulted in greater efficiency: but this cannot be the sole criterion.
The second criticism, namely that there will inevitably be an Asiatic majority, relates to the passage sidelined X/ on page 14 (paragraph 27(d)) of Sir Mark Young's despatch of the 22nd October. The arrangements described in that passage will only apply if Portuguese and Indian candidates stand for election to the Council: but I think we can take it as a fairly safe assumption that they will. The line taken in paragraph 3(a) of the despatch at No.86 is that the equal division of seats on the Council between the Chinese and non- Chinese communities, whilst accepted for the present, is of course subject to review in the light of experience. The implication of this passage is, of course, a possible increase in the proportion of Chinese seats, not the reverse. The former International Government of Shanghai does not, in my view, afford a, proper precedent for Hong Kong, and I do not see how we could possibly justify, these days, a system specifically designed to ensure a permanent European majority on a body such as the Municipal Council which is to be established in Hong Kong.
The third point, relating to trade unions, is fully discussed in the immediately preceding minutes.
I think there can be no doubt that the China Association, and probably the Hong Kong General Chamber of Commerce as well, were hoping that the Municipal Council would be modelled very closely on the lines of the former International Government of Shanghai; and this I think is the background to Mr. Keswick's letter. We cannot, however, admit any real parallel in constitutional and governmental matters between Shanghai prior to the War and Hong Kong as a Colony. I therefore suggest that the Secretary of State might reply to Mr. Keswick on the lines of the draft letter opposite.
Anṛalswer my
17.7.47.
Page 70Page 71