CO129-593-3 Rehabilitation of Hong Kong University. For extracted photographs see CN 3-45 12-1-1946 - 27-10-1946 — Page 25

25

From a short conversation with Dr. Priestley, who has just returned from a mission to Malaya on the future of its higher education, I think he has formed a very different estimate of the future role of the Malayan Chinese in the Malayan University from that of Mr. Sloss. Whichever prediction is right, it does not seem to me to affect more than a certain amount the proportionate distribution of students as set out in para. 2 of the Memorandum, but I think it might be well to clear it up and I suggest that, as Dr. Priestley will be discussing his Malayan impressions with Mr. Lloyd and myself on Tuesday (the 8th) at 3 p.m. in Mr. Lloyd's room, Mr. Sloss and the Hong Kong Department might be invited in after the other Malayan points have been disposed of. I have had a word with Mr. Sloss about this, who would be available any time Tuesday afternoon if Mr. Lloyd would like to adopt this suggestion.

3. With regard to the proposal to ask the Treasury for a special annual grant of £30,000, the point should I think be brought out that the reference in the statement of recurrent expenditure in para. 1 of the Memorandum to "Departmental grants per annum £37,500" includes an estimate of £20,000 for Scholarships and Maintenance Grants for students from China (para. 71 of the Report). This provision is a sine qua non of the achievement of the Committee's main recommendation and quite clearly, as essentially being beyond the needs of a merely Colonial institution, is a strong argument for a special annual grant from the Treasury sponsored by the Foreign Office.

4. No reference is made in the Memorandum to estimated changes in the revenue from fees (see para. 1). Mr. Sloss agrees with me that these are likely to show some increase, despite the much bigger provision of Scholarships and Maintenance Grants for those of the students who come from China.

5. The Report came before the full meeting of the Inter-University Council for Higher Education in the Colonies last week, and received the general approval of the Council. This has been communicated by the Council's Secretary at 79. I must add that I am not sure whether the approval would have been conveyed without qualification if members had thought that the cost of the scheme to the £41⁄2 million allocated to Higher Education under C.D.W. would be more than would in any case be likely to be applied for from that source whether or not the scheme was adopted. As far as I can see, after further discussion with Mr. Sloss, an application for assistance to C.D.W. on capital expenditure of some thing approaching the amount in the Memorandum would probably be called for whether or not the Committee's Report is adopted, provided the present inflated building costs at Hong Kong continue.

6

With regard to the amount of the charge which it is proposed should fall on funds within the Secretary of State for the Colonies' sphere (whether local or C.D.W.), para. 20 of the Report did not envisage the Colonial Government spending more than it hitherto has done. On the other hand I have little doubt that the Committee would have agreed (a) that the local and C.D.W. contributions taken together might certainly be as much as would

/in

وا