CO537-3707 — Page 230

COPY

PROTS TRANSLATION

written by their special correspondent

From an article in the ừa Kung

in London, i Malu-shih ( 黎秀石

秀石 )

Despatched from London on the 21st February and published 5th March,

Fut

In their mote of the 24th January 1948 to the Chinese Ambassador in London the Pritish Government three times accused the Chinese and Hong Kong vernacular press of printing reports which lacked veracity, and stirred un anti-ritish feeling. They urged the Chinese government to lay the facts about Towloon before the Chinese people and enable them to regar the "owloon Incident calmly and objectively. have the Pritish in Hong Kong and the Foreign Office noticed how objectively and fairly the Pritish press has treated this "ino-"ritish dispute? Ever since the demolition of the dwellings of the Chinese inhabitants of Kowloon City was ordered by the Tong Yong authorities on the 27th November last the City has been a great problem in Sino-Pritish relations.

And wet apart from a few incidental and brief reports in the "Times" and one or two other newspapers, the English preas 'gnored the "owloon problem. When however on the 16th Taruary 1943 the people of Canton burned down the British Consulate-General, the news of the "anti-Pritish riot in Canton” suddenl- appeared on the front pages of all the Pritish newspapers the next day. Only then did the British public learn of the rift in Sino-Pritish relations. All papers pub- lished the rews of the burning of the Consulate and the evacuation of women and children, Put when it came to the crux of the matter, i̟.0. why the Chinese were anti-"ritish, the comment and reporting was sketchy and biased. The Manchester Guardian told its readers "It is commonly believed that one of the reasons for to-day's riot was that two Chinese were sentenced to imprisonment in Yowloon (which is Pritish territor:`". The Daily Telegraph said, "The anti-Tritish movement all over China is in opposition to the eviction of Chinese from the Towloon area in the Pritish color of Hong "ong.' The houses from which they were evicted were a danger to public health. The Times report from Canton stated "This anti-British riot broke out after the Chinese Government had announced that they protested against the British in Rong Tong sentenc- ing two Chinese to penal servitude. These two Chinese were accused of obstructing the police in the old city of Towloon (onnosite the colony of "long Yong' who were evicting Chinese from insanitary dwellings". None of the reports in the rest of the national and provincial press enlarged on these given above. The English readers did not know that four days before the burning of the Consulate in Canton the long Tons police had used arms and tear gas during the eviction and that as a result five of the Chinese inhabitants were injured. The English renders knew nothing of the negotiations on the question of Kowloon or of the status of the area, or that Towloon City could not be lumed with Kowloon itself. Nor did they know anything about the question of Juris - diction in the city. Thile the Pritish press so ignores the facts how dare the Pritish Foreign ffice reprove others for making reporte lacking in veracity. Come English friends have oleaded ignorance on the part of the English press. But this is wishful thinking, for the originators of the reports were in China and certainly knew the facts, Furthermore 12 the press was unable to state fully the causes of the incidents on account of the suddenness of the outbreak of the Shameen incident, then they should have reported all the facts later. But apart from the "m.

*ines and " ́anchester Guardian” not one of them printed any further news about Kowloon, The Manchester Guardian not only distorted the f^cts about the causes of the Centon incident but also suggested that the magistrate of Fo-on should be dismissed on account of his incitement of the unruly elements and his action in sending representatives with relief supplies to.

/t ose

J

Page 230Page 231