7
was informed of the position.
In Hong Kong's reply at (46)
the Governor agreed that it would be a mistake for the University to close and it should carry on on a pre-war basis until such time as it was possible to expand it. It was suggested however that H.M.G. should make a capital grant of -,000,000 (i.e. £250,000) to restore the University to its 1941 level. The Treasury again turned this down and Hong Kong were informed accordingly see (52) on 1947 file though it was agreed that the capital and recurrent charges on this project should be borne on the Hong Kong estimates (Hong Kong was then under Treasury financial control). The note at (56) on 54147/47 summarises the position up to 20th December, 1947.
-
-
8. The savingram at (2) on 54147/48 shows clearly that Hong Kong were not prepared to accept the recommendation of the Hong Kong University Advisory Committee that the University should close unless it could be developed on the lines recommended by the Committee. In fact the Hong Kong Government were prepared to meet the costs of rehabilitation and recurrent charges from its own resources knowing that assistance from the United Kingdom was most unlikely. A copy of a statement made by the Governor on the future of the University is behind (24) on the 48 file.
9. The Hansard extract column 20 at (42) on the 1948 file shows that H.M.G. did, after all, agree to make a free grant of £250,000 for the Hong Kong University and the telegram at (44) shows that this amount was in addition to and not in place of the funds made available by the Hong Kong Government itself.
10. (c) of paragraph 2 above has been covered in paragraphs 6 to 9 and although it will undoubtedly have a serious effect on British prestige if the University's activities have to be cur- tailed, the Governor and the Hong Kong Government and the Vice- Chancellor, Mr. Sloss, were all fully aware that further assistance from H.M.G. was unlikely to be given. The grant of £500,000 (£250,000 in 1948 and £250,000 in 1950) is surely an answer to allegations that the refusal of a further contribution "would be taken as a clear sign that H.M.G. did not intend to stay in the Colony".
11.
As regards (a) of paragraph 2 that a contribution from H.M.G. would make it easier to raise money in Hong Kong, a somewhat similar suggestion was made in 1947 - see paragraphs 3 and 4 of (45) on 54147/47. At (46) the Governor replied "I am of the opinion, as are members of the Council, that a token grant from U.K. Treasury would not serve as an incentive to induce local Chinese to make more contributions than they otherwise would". The present proposal is slightly different in that it is a "matching" proposal, i.e. similar amounts will be contributed by the Colony and H.M.G.
12. To sum up.
There is no doubt that if the activities of the University have to be curtailed it will have an adverse effect on British prestige in the Far East. It will probably be impossible to raise sufficient money locally to establish an endowment fund for the University unless H.M.G. also agree to assist. On the other hand H.M.G. having granted £500,000 for the University in recent years and having made it clear that it was not prepared to accept full financial responsibility for the University, Hong Kong have been very slow in trying to help themselves. The Endowment Fund proposal was made in April, 1950 and efforts could have been made in Hong Kong during 1950 and even early 1951 to raise some money before the present restrictions reduced the Colony's trade and prosperity. level of taxation in Hong Kong is extremely low.
The
13. I think the previous minutes on this file make it clear that H.M.G. should not be asked to give any more money to the University and that the U.K's financial position would not justify an approach to the Treasury during the present difficult
On the other hand period this country is passing through.
/unless
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.