CO885-11 — Page 77

77

PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE

9

Reference :-

C.O.882/11

ALLY WITHOUT PERMISSION OF THE COPYRIGHT PHOTOGRAPH-NOT TO BE REPRODUCED PHOTOGRAPHIC-

PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE, LONDON'

142

suggestion from Mr. C. C. Wu that the Hongkong Government should accept in principle strike pay and compensation for non- reinstatement, after the Canton Government had turned down the proposal of the Chinese delegates to pay $300,000 to settle every- thing, we concluded that the two were not the same thing, and that therefore any discussion of the matter of the $300,000 men- tioned would not be a departure from His Excellency's declared principle. Accordingly we decided to renew conversation on the matter of the $300,000, but to refuse to consider at all the ques- tion of agreeing in principle by the Hongkong Government or hy Hongkong to the two "economic terms above mentioned.

..

7. The next morning, at about 9.30 a.m., Mr. Foo and we resumed the conversation. Mr. Foo produced several printed copies of the "demands of the strikers and students, and gave us a copy each, unofficially. He went through the fifteen terms of the strikers clause by clause, omitting clauses 5 (portion), 6. 10 and 14, because we said that we could not discuss them. As he was going through each clause he repeated to us (to the best of his memory, as he said), the views expressed by Mr. Fletcher in regard thereto; and we added, wherever we deemed necessary. our own comments or remarks, taking care to say that such were based on our own knowledge or experience as ordinary citizens of Hongkong. He informed us that the demands " were drawn up by the strikers without the previous knowledge of the Canton Government, which explained the obscurity of certain phrases. some of which even the members of the Strike Committee were unable to elucidate, when questioned. We give below the gist of Mr. Foo's remarks and also our own in regard to each

demand ":-

(1) He said that the characters chap wui" [Chinese characters] were intended to mean the establishment in Hong- kong of branches of political organisation, such as the Kuomintang. He instanced the existence of the Kuomintang branches in London, Liverpool, Paris, New York and San Francisco, and said that he could not see why such could not be permitted in Hongkong. We made no remark.

..

"Freedom in Publication was intended to include. the publication and free distribution of political propaganda. We ventured no comment on this.

*

"

"Freedom in Education was to include the use of Chinese textbooks printed in China, such as those published by the Commercial Press in Shanghai. We said that the use of textbooks in vernacular schools in the Colony should first be approved by the Education Department of Hongkong.

Freedom in Residence was directed against the law prohibiting Chinese from residing in the Hill District. said the law made it necessary for all, irrespective of race or nationality, to apply for permission to live on the Peak, and that the existing legislation was one which we personally could not quarrel with, because it was purely economic and not racial.

We

E

143

Freedom in Patriotic Movements and Parades" was then discussed. We pointed out that in Canton the previous per mission of the police was necessary before any patriotic pro- cessions or parades could take place.

· Closing of Unions."—We said that as far as we knew no unions had been closed, but we believed that some premises had been distrained on by landlords for non-payment of rent.

(2) Hongkong Law. We said that apart from the Regu- lation of Chinese Ordinance, the repeal of which had been considered since 1916, and would soon be made, the laws of Hongkong applied equally to all residents, irrespective of race or nationality. The law governing deportation was also general, and if more Chinese had been deported, it was simply due to the Chinese population being at least 95 per cent, to the 5 per cent, of the remaining population.

Flogging."Mr. Foo said Mr. Fletcher pointed out that the penality of flogging was general, and was usually awarded only in cases of rape and personal violence to women and children. We confirmed Mr. Fletcher's statement; and Mr. Foo enquired whether flogging was now still permitted in England, and we said that although we were not certain we thought it was.

(3) Legislative Council.-We said that while the Hong- kong Government would always be prepared to consider representations from its own inhabitants, it manifestly could not permit interference with its internal affairs or internal constitution by outside people.

(4) Factories and Child Labour.--Mr. Foo said Mr. Fletcher told the Canton Government that the longkong Government had already considered the problem which was a difficult one; that it would be pleased to adopt any measure for the betterment of the. conditions of working men and child labour, if it were found practicable; and that the Govern- ment would be prepared to compare the Hongkong system with any system that may be introduced in Canton and to adapt it in Hongkong, should it be found to be desirable. We said that we agreed with Mr. Fletcher, and also referred him to Hongkong Ordinance 22 of 1922 in regard to child labour. Mr. Foo admitted that the problem was a difficult

and one that had a world-wide significance.

one,

(5) Victimisation after reinstatement. The first part of .. this clause was not considered, but we lightly touched upon the point that after reinstatement the men should not be dis- missed on flimsy grounds, or be victimised. We said that

such would never happen, and Mr. Foo answered that the condition was introduced merely because it was usual to embody it in all settlements of a strike.

(7) Release of strikers from Prison; and Deportation.-We said that it was clearly impossible to expect the release of persons convicted of intimidation or offences of a similar nature; but persons removed from the Colony under the Emergency Regulations as being rogues and vagabonds