GOVERNMENT AND PEOPLE IN HONG KONG 1841 1962 97
public eye the cases of those who might otherwise have no idea how to put their case before the Government. But it remains true, as Mr. Endacott implicitly concedes, that Government has only a general idea of the currents of opinion at the lower end of the social scale.
It is generally assumed that the vast majority of Chinese are more concerned with making a regular living than with politics, and the negative evidence (for there is little positive) confirms it; but it could be that people are simply unaware of how to make their demands and needs felt and in general prefer not to tangle with officialdom. In the New Territories the representation system, the District Offices, and the relative smallness of the population means that Government and people are reasonably in touch; in town there is scarcely any way for the man in the street to make his needs and aspirations felt.
And yet, the fact is that it does seem to work. Policy-makers in the Administration do seem by and large to be aware that colonialism is an anachronism, and their attitudes are modified accordingly. Expatriate civil servants are not immune to the currents of thought prevalent in the nineteen sixties, and for the most part are young enough to take for granted in their own country the universal franchise, compulsory free education for all, extensive social services and very considerable personal freedom. And these are generally regarded as the ideal, if unlikely ever to be possible in the context of Hong Kong. Post-war trends of thought have produced a rather different type of colonial bureaucrat from those who, for instance, reserved The Peak exclusively for European habitation.
Constitutional advance in Hong Kong was originally scheduled to keep pace, more or less, with what the British Government intended in other colonies. The war would have hastened on the process, had there been no change of government in China. The U.S. Government would have preferred Hong Kong to be restored to Chiang Kai-shek, and the Chinese themselves hoped that this might be the case. In the event, the surrender was accepted by both Chinese and British, but Britain, under the Charter of the United Nations, was committed to leading colonial territories towards self-government. It is rather a pity that no
GOVERNMENT AND PEOPLE IN HONG KONG 1841 1962 97
public eye the cases of those who might otherwise have no idea how to put their case before the Government. But it remains true, as Mr. Endacott implicitly concedes, that Government has only a general idea of the currents of opinion at the lower end of the social scale.
It is generally assumed that the vast majority of Chinese are more concerned with making a regular living than with politics, and the negative evidence (for there is little positive) confirms it; but it could be that people are simply unaware of how to make their demands and needs felt and in general prefer not to tangle with officialdom. In the New Territories the representation system, the District Offices, and the relative smallness of the population means that Government and people are reasonably in touch; in town there is scarcely any way for the man in the street to make his needs and aspirations felt.
And yet, the fact is that it does seem to work. Policy-makers in the Administration do seem by and large to be aware that colonialism is an anachronism, and their attitudes are modified accordingly. Expatriate civil servants are not immune to the currents of thought prevalent in the nineteen sixties, and for the most part are young enough to take for granted in their own country the universal franchise, compulsory free education for all, extensive social services and very considerable personal freedom. And these are generally regarded as the ideal, if unlikely ever to be possible in the context of Hong Kong. Post-war trends of thought have produced a rather different type of colonial bureaucrat from those who, for instance, reserved The Peak exclusively for Euro- pean habitation.
Constitutional advance in Hong Kong was originally scheduled to keep pace, more or less, with what the British Government intended in other colonies. The war would have hastened on the process, had there been no change of government in China. The U.S. Government would have preferred Hong Kong to be restored to Chiang Kai-shek, and the Chinese themselves hoped that this might be the case. In the event, the surrender was accepted by both Chinese and British, but Britain, under the Charter of the United Nations, was committed to leading colonial territories towards self-government. It is rather a pity that no
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.