CO537-1658 — Page 10

that

above, it is not possible to form any opinion on the Chinese case. It would seem only equitable, however, the same criteria as were applied to Sir Robert Kotewall, Mr. Li Tse Fong, and other members of the Japanese sponsored Chinese Councils should also be extended to Mr. Shum. Extracts from broadcasts made by Sir R. Kotewall and others are given in the enclosures (a) and (b) in the letter at 1 on file 14342/2/1 attached. It will be seen that they could hardly go further in support of the Japanese. It was decided, however, as a matter of policy, that although

Sir R. Kotewall should be asked to resign from membership of the Executive Council, no other action should be taken against him or the other members of the Chinese Councils such as M.K. Lo, a present member of the Executive Council and others.

5. Mr. Shum's petition that he should not be surrendered to the Chinese Government rests (as summarized in paragraph 40 of his petition);

his

(a) on the claim that the alleged acts did not

collaboration with the Japanese

constitute

and that in fact he performed a service to the Allied cause through the publication of his newspaper "Wah Kiu Yat Po" during the Japanese occupation;

(b) on the claim that the real object of the

Chinese demand for his surrender is, not for his punishment as a collaborator, but as a means of obtaining control over his newspaper;

(c) on the claim that his surrender would not

therefore be in accordance with the terms of the Chinese Extradition Ordinance of 1889;

(d) on the assertion that he is a British subject.

6. The rather involved story revealed in Mr. Shum's petition is confirmed by what Mr. MacDougall has

/previously

Page 10Page 11