CO129-593-3 Rehabilitation of Hong Kong University. For extracted photographs see CN 3-45 12-1-1946 - 27-10-1946 — Page 20

20

T

in Hong Kong capable of catering for Chinese students from outside the Colony as well as covering the needs of the Colony itself is as strong as, if not stronger than, it was in 1939 when we were prevented from taking steps in that direction only by the outbreak of the War. Mr. Cox said that he would explain to Sir H. Prideaux-Brune that on the whole we thought that it would be preferable to defer sending a copy of the Report to Nanking until the Secretary of State had written to Mr. Bevin on the matter.

On the last point, namely, a division of the capital and recurrent expenditure involved as between the funds within the Secretary of State's sphere and other U.K. funds, I suggested to Mr. Cox that the funds within the Secretary of State's sphere might be responsible for the repair of building and equipment estimated at £116,000 on the capital side and on the recurrent side an annual grant equivalent to that which was made by the Government of Hong Kong to the University prior to the occupation of Hong Kong, namely £23,500. This would leave capital expenditure of £950,000 and recurrent expenditure of £84,980 to be met from other funds. Mr. Cox was under the impression that the 1939 Committee had recommended that the grant made by the Hong Kong Government towards the cost of the University should be increased and thought that it would be necessary to take that recommendation into account. He suggested that a memorandum might be drawn up, setting out proposals for the division of the recurrent and capital cost, for consideration on Mr. Sloss's return. Mr. Cox suggested and I entirely agree that Mr. Caine should be asked whether he would very kindly let us have his views on this question.

We should now go ahead with the distribution of copies of the Report, as above, and also with the preparation of a memorandum on the subject of the division of capital and recurrent cost as between Hong Kong and C.D. & W. funds on the one hand and other U.K. funds on the other. The memorandum should, I think, deal with the question of obtaining part of the capital cost from voluntary subscriptions. If it is considered that there is no such possibility that view should be expressed and the reasons given. The memorandum should also, I think, point out that if there is any question of passing on to the Foreign Office any views on the subject of the division of the cost it will be very desirable to consult the Governor of Hong Kong first.

12.9.46.

Page 20Page 21