A.
Q.7.
A.
2.8.
A.
Q.9.
A.
Q10.
A.
4.
No. As I stated in answer to the previous question, the whole issue went out of the control of the wah Kiu Yat Po on handing over of the same to the newspaper distributor in Hong Kong.
Is it a fact that you went to Japan in 1943?
This accusation is completely untrue and can be convincingly discredited by sworn statements (if required) from many eminent and respectable Hong Kong citizens. I can say with definite assurance that I had never left the shores of Hong Kong during the war years. The rumour might have arisen by reason of confusion of myself with Lo Mung Shu, the editor of the Wah Kiu Yat Po, who was compelled to visit Japan in 1943 with representatives from various other Hong Kong papers on a Japanese-sponsored newspaper tour of Japan. It was sponsored not only for Hong Kong newspapermen, but for newspapermen from all occupied territories. It is to be emphasized that in the case of two very prominent Hong Kong citizens, also owner and publisher of a Hong Kong newspaper published in Hong Kong during the occupation, there was a certain amount of publicity and mention in the local press of their visit to Japan and I feel certain that if I had made a similar visit, the Japanese Propaganda Department would have thought fit as in the other case to make propagan- da out of the visit. I challenge the production of a singe newspaper item testifying to my having made such a visit.
Did you ever go to Japan during the Japanese occupation period?
No.
Is it a fact that you went to Canton in 1945?
This is not true. I had at no time left Hong Kong during the war years not even set foot on a nearby post like Canton.
Did you visit Canton on this alleged occasion or on any other occasion to
(a)
(b)
pay personal calls on puppet Shu Mun Yee and enemy liaison officers;
reorganise and expand pro-Japanese cultural propa- ganda in Canton?
No. If I had done anything in the nature alleged one can be certain that the Japanese Propaganda Department would have made propaganda out of the visits. During the whole of the occupation period, I made it my policy strictly to confine myself to work directly connected with the Wah Kiu Yat Po only, and can emphatically assent that all induce- ments, lucrative and otherwise were refused by me, for example, an offer was made to me to start a newspaper in Canton with substantial privileges, but I flatly rejected the proposition. It was then offered to and accepted by the same two prominent Hong Kong citizens who had paid a visit to Japan as mentioned in my answer to Question 7. These 2, as I have said, were owner and publisher of a Hong Kong newspaper published during the occupation which was as outwardly pro-Japanese and anti-Allied and Chinese National Government as the Wah Kiu Yat Po or any other Chinese newspaper published during the occupation, but without the insidious Allied propaganda value of the Wah Kiu Yat Po in its publication; yet, in spite of this and in spite of the fact that both had openly paid a visit to