minimise any embarrassment to the recognised Government of China, before we attempt to check activities of the Kuomintang in Hong Kong. Whatever the official pretence may be, we cannot burke the fact that the Chinese Central Government and the Kuomintang are to all intents and purposes identical.
4. As regards the question of Chinese consular representation in the Colony, we take the Governor's point. Nevertheless, we feel that T.W. Kwok's title is not at present of major importance, since the Chinese Government in concluding the recent Customs Agreement have already acknowledged British sovereignty over Hong Kong. We agree in fact with Sir Ralph Stevenson in thinking that this matter also should be raised afresh at leisure and on its merits.
5. To sum up we recommend:-
(i) that the assurances of the Chinese Minister for Foreign Affairs in regard to the "National Times" should be accepted and that the paper should be judged on its future behaviour; and
(ii) that we should first seek to bridle the refugee personalities and organisations within the Colony and only then tackle the question of Kuomintang activities and consular representation.
6. As regards the second point in the immediately preceding paragraph above we note that the Governor has already sent a warning to General Li Chi-shen (Hong Kong telegram No. 27 of the 8th January), In view, however, of
the information given in paragraph 3 of Nanking telegram No. 35 of the 12th January (copy sent to Colonial Office
under /
Zon
54395/4 54395/48
3
in cre