CO129-610-3 Rehabilitation of Hong Kong University 15-2-1949 - 7-2-1950 — Page 65

-3-

We deliberately set our request for aid as low as possible which was, perhaps, a mistake.

III. The Visiting Commission.

(a)

63

Even after your letter in which you mentioned physical conveniences of delay till Easter I was against post- ponement but dropped my objection on Cox's belief (i) that postponement would not further prejudice our case and (ii) that delay till Easter might assure a more authoritative commission. The more I think of it, the more concerned I am that Walter Adams should be one. He has all the knowledge and is capable of an objective judgment. Easter at latest then, but earlier if good people can be found to go.

(b) The Commission's job is difficult.

It must examine prospects

in the next ten or more years; it must examine a plan based on the use of three distinct grants. Hong Kong Government, Treasury and C.D. & W. The plan sent up in three despatches is coherent and falls completely if any one of these grants fails. Paskin tells me that you have been asked to prepare a scheme on the supposition that we fail to get help from C.D. & W. I can see the necessity of this and can fairly clearly see the results. Done with complete honesty and objectivity it would show the University limping on from year to year more hopelessly under financed than in the worst pre-war years. All the same I can see that this ought to be done, not as an argument for support but to face a situation that may arise. I don't venture to suggest how our approved scheme could be cut or what new scheme might replace it.

With Government expenditure on the Air Field, the new water scheme and Housing, I see no hope of an increased Government grant to the University. The increase in 1947 from

450,000 to $1 million was generous. We are back to the chance of private donations. When we get a decent University donations will come in. I found the potent argument to draw 1 million from Robert Ho Tung was to emphasize what the Government had put up.

Our strongest argument is for the Commission to see what has been done since 1946, to measure the abounding vitality of Hong Kong and to get the "feel" both of the quality of the staff and of the place the University has gained in the life of the Colony. Though neither is part of the plan on which it is asked to make a judgment two other projects are relevant to their final judgement of the University as a living thing.

(I) the Anglo-Chinese Research Institute with the almost assured backing of London and Cambridge and probably of Oxford.

(2) the Institute of Education - with special emphasis on the training of teachers of English for work in China wherein the aid of the British Council will be necessary. The Communist Government can hardly ignore it as they are so insistent on the need of good teaching in English for their economic development. They may not openly cooperate but, Chinese-fashion, they will find a way of profiting by it.