Secretariat file No. 4/811/49.
SAVINGRAM
To the Secretary of State for the Colonies.
From the Governor, Hong Kong.
Date
4.
April, 1949.
40
3
(1)+(2)
No. 264,
Your savingrams No. 129 and 161 of the 2nd and
9th February, 1949.
1.
Passages for Ex-Internees.
The suggestion that this Government should accept responsibility for the cost of homeward passages from the first port of transhipment to the final destination in the case of civilians released from internment has caused me much concern.
2.
It is admitted by the War Office that the removal of these persons from the areas in which they were released after the surrender of Japan was a military operation. this reason, the War Office have agreed to meet the cost of passages wherever the ex-internees were brought direct to the United Kingdom but in all other cases only as far as the port of first transhipment.
3.
Presumably the decision to convey ex-internees direct to the United Kingdom in some cases and to tranship them in others was made to suit the convenience of the Ministry of Transport. I submit, therefore, that the distinction which the War Office seeks to draw between the two classes of passengers is purely adventitious and that this Government ought not to be called upon to bear any additional expense simply because it suited the Ministry of Transport to tranship the passengers halfway.
4.
As I have explained on previous occasions, the question of these repatriation passages is a peculiarly delicate one so far as this Colony is concerned. The policy decided upon in 1940 to evacuate European women and children caused great bitterness among other sections of the popula- tion. The repatriation of civilians released from intern- ment was also limited to those who were not domiciled locally. It was represented at the time that persons of local domicile who had to fend for themselves during the Japanese occupation were equally in need of free facilities for recuperation and the whole question of repatriation passages has thus become inextricably associated in the public mind with racial dis- crimination.
5.
There is also the aspect that a number of the persons repatriated have since returned to the Colony and have amassed considerable wealth as a result of successful business transactions. The bulk of the population would naturally resent the cost of such passages being met from public funds. The persons concerned were, however, led by statements made at the time by a Colonial Office representa- tive to believe that they would be repatriated at no expense to themselves and any attempt to obtain a refund now would be regarded as a serious breach of faith. In any case no signed undertakings to re-pay appear to have been obtained.
6.
When the financial settlement in regard to war expenditure was under discussion at the end of 1947, I emphasised that, for the above reasons, there would be strong opposition to any proposal that the return passages of the
Page 40Page 41
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.