CO129-609-5 Future policy- Press accounts of Chinese unrest over Kowloon evictions 19-1-1948 - 16-3-1948 — Page 3

X

3

the

paper in effect supports/Chinese. Secondly, it may give rise to a Parliamentary question. As regards the first point, the damage is done and, short of a recantation by the Economist (

which we ardhardly likely to get) it cannot be undone

M

wants

As regards the second, if an . P. to ask a Question based on this Economist article he will do it anyway.

We might get a letter written to the paper by a senior retired officer or other person

of some standing from Hong Kong now in this country pointing out the impracticability of the Chinese exercising jursidiction of the walled city area. But it would take some days before such a letter could be organised. Information Dept. might write semi-officially to the Editor of the "Economist on the same particular point. Or we might try an approach to R. F. Hudson, who was once in Research Department of the Foreign Office and is said to write f China for the Economist." why we have no direct contact with Hudson and we do not know how much he could help even if we had one. Finally,

Bur

we might have a short inspired Question

in the House on the particular point at X with an Answer giving the information at Y. But this might lead on very easily to controversy over the jurisdiction issue.

On the whole I think we should take no action for the following reasons. Such action as we could take is not ikely to be very effective. Whatever we did might lead on to the jurisdiction

And issue and start an argument

That action

+

is hardly worth while in any case, because the satisfactory line taken by the other papers - notably by the Times in its two Leaders of the 20th and 24th January is likely to outweigh the "Economist's critical attitude.

Jiwall

29.1.48.

I should certainly like to see someone expose the stupidity of the suggestion in the "Economist" that it would have been a wise act of policy to hand back Kowloon City to Chinese administration when Britain resumed control of Hong Kong in 1945. The article ignores altogether the fact that the area concerned covers no more than 6 acres and is situated some 15-20 miles within the frontier of the leased territory. The

administration