CO537-2192 — Page 48

No. 214 (6863/451/47)

Copied to:-

Hong Kong No.

124 (by safe hand)

F8775/376/10

26

BRITISH EMBASSY,

NANKING,

copy for

copy

12th June, 1947. Co.

RECEIVED

ref F8392

376

10

SECRET

sir,

7-JUL-947

La

9. REGL

589(22)

I have the honour to refer to your telegram No. 589 of 20th May requesting my views with regard to Hong Kong ша

despatch to the Colonial Office No. 13 of April 17th, to which (24) I replied

in brief in my telegram No. 545 of May 29th.

2.

An important factor in considering the issue of Kuomintang activities in Hong Kong and the measures which can appropriately be taken to counter them is, it seems to me, the recent constitutional development whereby the one-party period of

tutelage under the Kuomintang has now technically ceased. The logical result of the introduction of representative government in China is that the Kuomintang need no longer be identified with the government of which it is now only one of several component elements. In consequence the Hong Kong branch of the Party can be fairly regarded as divested of any claims to official status and therefore any representations of the sort contemplated in the correspondence referred to in paragraph 2 of the above Hong Kong despatch would appear to be no longer either necessary or appropriate. In any case I share the view expressed by Sir Mark Young in paragraph 6 of his despatch regarding the undesirability of seeming to accord special recognition to the local representative of the Kuomintang by making him the subject of any official approach of that nature. It would thus appear to be preferable as a matter of political and tactical expediency to treat him as an ordinary individual whose residence in the Colony is solely contingent upon decent behaviour. The touch-stone of any retaliatory action to be taken against him or any other members of the local Kuomintang party organisation should therefore, in my opinion, be whether or not they are engaged in any activities detrimental to public security or the welfare of the state. I am therefore in favour of the line of action proposed in paragraph 7 of Sir Mark Young's despatch, which can presumably be put into effect on the production of adequate evidence under local defence or other similar regulations, as would in fact seem to be indicated in the three subsequent paragraphs of that despatch.

3.

It may well be that the implementation of such a bold policy may evoke loud protests from the Chinese Government under pressure from Kuomintang partisans or the Overseas Chinese Affairs Commission, but it should be difficult for them to dispute the right of the Hong Kong authorities to take action against persons guilty of subversive activities, particularly now that the Kuomintang is theoretically divorced from the state. In this context it is perhaps not irrelevant to observe that extensive discretionary powers to order and enforce the expulsion of undesirable foreigners from China is given the competent authorities under Article VIII of the Regulations governing the

His Majesty's Principal Secretary of

State for Foreign Affairs,

Foreign Office,

London, S.W.1.

Entry/