CO537-3713 — Page 28

JOPY

(F 918/154/10)

CONFIDENTIAL

Original on 54145/16/48.

FOREIGN OFFICE, S.W.1.

23rd January, 1948.

1

(Dear mayle)

we have been considering the proposals raised by the Governor of Hong Kong in his telegram No.67 of the 17th January, and commented upon by our Ambassador at Nanking in his telegram No.67 of the 18th January, for (a) the immediate withdrawal from Hong Kong of the "National Times" (b) the withdrawal from Hong Kong of the Kuomintang and the San Min Chu Yi Youth Corps and (c) the appointment to Hong Kong of a Chinese Consul-General.

2.

Of these only the first appears strictly germane to the question of a settlement of the trouble over the evictions from Kowloon walled city. The "National Times", which is said to be entirely supported by an official subsidy, is described as "consistently mischievous and provocative". This being so we have every reason for insisting that it should not be used to the detriment of Anglo-Chinese relations, and indeed the Chinese Minister for Foreign Affairs has since told Sir Ralph Stevenson that, in response to the latter's representations, he had caused instructions to be sent to the paper to maintain an unprovocative attitude". Assuming, however, that the "National Times" is the only Government subsidised paper published in the Colony, we should have thought there were advantages in allowing it to continue publication on receipt of satisfactory undertakings that its policy would be brought under control. To ban the paper on its past record, however exceptionable, seems needlessly wounding to Chinese pride unless they are first given an opportunity to bring it to heel. If they fail to do so within a reasonable time, we could then reconsider our attitude.

3.

The presence of the Kuomintang organisation in Hong Kong, of which the San Mi Chu Yi Youth Corps is a part, has we appreciate long created difficulties for the Hong Kong Government. As we see it however there are two very practical grounds in not attempting to grapple with the Party immediately, even if the Chinese Government should show themselves to be in a receptive mood as a result of the recent disturbances, and from the latest telegrams the contrary appears to be the case. These grounds are:

(i) that no evidence to implicate the Kuomintang (apart from the "National Times") with the squatter trouble has so far been produced; and

(11) as Sir Ralph Stevenson argues in his telegram No.67, any such demand would be likely to have a serious effect on Anglo-Chinese relations at a time when the Hong Kong Government are tolerating the existence within the Colony of two outlawed political parties (the Chinese Communist Party and the Democratic League) and of various dissident Chinese Generals. It seems to us to be a matter of first importance that firm measures should first be taken with these dissidents and that enerally we should show proof of our will to 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.

44.

As regards the question of Chinese consular representation in the Colony, we take the Governor's point.

N.L. Mayle, Esq.,

Nevertheless

Colonial Office.