CO537-1657 — Page 6

intolerable

As to the first question, you will recollect that as the result of a letter which I sent to the Foreign Office, the Foreign Office telegraphed to our Ambassador at Nanking, asking whether the Press report of a statement which the Ambassador made in Singapore on the subject of Hong Kong accurately represented what was said, and drawing attention to the possible effect of public statements on the future of Hong Kong at the present time. The Ambassador, in his reply, asked for guidance on how he should reply to any further questions on the subject of Hong Kong, and, at our suggestion, the Foreign Office are telling him that he should adopt a completely non-committal attitude and should simply say that he is not in a position to make any statement on the subject of Hong Kong and the New Territories. The Foreign Office have suggested to me in this connection that perhaps we would give similar counsel to the Hong Kong Government, referring to the official statement which was made by that Government on the subject of the Kowloon Walled City.

I think the Foreign Office request is reasonable. In view of the wide repercussions of any official statement that is made affecting the status of Hong Kong and the New Territories, it is clearly important that all concerned should be fully consulted beforehand. There we certainly have been no such consultation in the present case, and I am afraid that we must draw the Governor's attention to the point. I attach a draft telegram which I will read over to the Foreign Office before it goes off, if it is approved here.

Turning to the second question, I don't think that there would be much advantage to us in asking our Ambassador in Nanking to make any representa- tions to the Chinese Government on the actual question of the Chinese claim to administration within the Walled City of Kowloon. But I think that it would be worth while considering whether Mr. Kwok's obviously unsatisfactory and, to my mind,/undesirable behaviour in connection with this question should not be made use of if it is decided to make representations to the Chinese Government on the subject of the Chinese Consul- General in Hong Kong, in accordance with

a suggestion which has recently been made by the Governor. I would propose to make this point in sending copies of (19) and enclosure to the Foreign Office.

From 2.0. F/4033/113/14

20 (Nanking Tel. 552)

this telegram

ala

25.9.46.

27.9.46

I submit a revised draft telegram to Hong Kong as the result of a discussion with Mr. Lloyd, which took account of the telegram from Nanking, which I have added to the file (No.20) ich suggests that the Press statement which the Hong Kong Government issued in Hong Kong has had good results.

This statement may still, however, prejudice the consideration of any request we may decide to

make