186
gence and capacity of the official class controlling this Colony at the present time of its existence, and when he comes to compare the same with the rigid system of qualifications exacted in his own country.
In fact, the critic felt that there was little to choose between the operations of Chinese or colonial administration.
Hongkong might even have the edge as far as incompetent administration was concerned, for "much as China is abused for its inefficiency and jobbery, in these as well as in its feebleness and downright deceit and audacity the present one-horse administration of Hongkong well take the cake.”
Anyone caring to look could easily see how Hongkong was mismanaged by ineffective administrators. With a Chinese official watching they might be shamed to mend their ways.
The editor claimed that China had no monopoly on the practice of "squeezing." It was his opinion that "we are all more or less tarred with the same brush in this respect." For the Chinese it is a part of their system.
The writer explained: “It is simply an incident peculiar to the Chinese system of taxation. It concerns themselves alone. They all do it, and submit to the system with universal complacency, if not with satisfaction."
Hongkong had its own problems to worry about and to correct without attempting to reform traditional Chinese procedures.
If the Telegraph was hard on Government officials it was equally critical of the manner in which the General Chamber of Commerce operated. It felt that the chamber was out of its province when it meddled in the political area.
All the rantings of the Hongkong merchants about decisions arrived at on a diplomatic level were characterised as an "asinine exhibition." Behind it was the Chamber of Commerce.
186
gence and capacity of the official class controlling this Colony at the present time of its existence, and when he comes to compare the same with the rigid system of qualifications exacted in his own country."
In fact, the critic felt that there was little to choose between the operations of Chinese or colonial administration.
Hongkong might even have the edge as far as incompetent ad- ministration was concerned, for "much as China is abused for its inefficiency and jobbery, in these as well as in its feebleness and downright deceit and audacity the present one-horse administra- tion of Hongkong well take the cake.”
Anyone caring to look could easily see how Hongkong was mismanaged by ineffective administrators. With a Chinese offi- cial watching they might be shamed to mend their ways.
The editor claimed that China had no monopoly on the practice of "squeezing.” It was his opinion that "we are all more or less tarred with the same brush in this respect.” For the Chinese it is a part of their system.
The writer explained: “It is simply an incident peculiar to the Chinese system of taxation. It concerns themselves alone. They all do it, and submit to the system with universal complacency, if not with satisfaction."
Hongkong had its own problems to worry about and to correct without attempting to reform traditional Chinese procedures.
If the Telegraph was hard on Government officials it was equal- ly critical of the manner in which the General Chamber of Com- merce operated. It felt that the chamber was out of its province when it meddled in the political area.
All the rantings of the Hongkong merchants about decisions arrived at on a diplomatic level were characterised as an "asinine exhibition." Behind it was the Chamber of Commerce.
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.