FO371-27622 — Page 239

Page 239

Page 239

to some while blacklisting others. Troubles, however, still arose and Mr. Forrest was at his wits' end for a solution. Mr. Kobza as from 20th November had operated a photographic studio in the Immigration Office (that was one of the recommendations of the Middlebrook report) and on 1st December he applied for a monopoly not only of the photographic work required but also of the completion of application forms. That application was refused on Mr. Forrest's recommendation. On 11th December Mr. Forrest had reconsidered the matter and strongly advocated the grant of a monopoly. The question was referred to the Governor in Executive Council, and the decision there taken was that the proposed long term monopoly should not be granted, but that there would be no objection to the selection of a few authorized agencies by the method of tender on short term contracts. That was on 24th December, 1940, and Mr. Forrest was present at the meeting of Council and further had the decision conveyed to him on 27th December. What happened after that may best perhaps he told in Mr. Forrest's own words:

On 1st December, 1940, I had written to Government deprecating strongly the grant of a monopoly; the minutes extracted from C.8.0. 2868 40 are already in the hands of the Commission. Before 11th December I had come to the conclusion that I was wrong in the attitude which I had taken on the question of a monopoly and had approached Government with the recommendation that tenders be asked for the combined monopoly for the photographic and clerical assistance in connexion with the department's work; I defended my new position before Executive Council on 24th December but the decision was adverse; I was however left with the discretion to treat with agencies on such terms as I might think desirable. I might add on that point the fact that the complete meaning of the Executive Council's decision, which I had at first interpreted as meaning that I was not permitted to establish anything in the way of a general agency, was explained to me in a meeting with His Excellency the date of which I cannot for the moment quote, but which the present Colonial Secretary will remember as he was also present. The meeting took place in Government House.

As matters became worse, I determined on the course of cancelling all recog- nitions already granted to agencies, and then inviting the agencies still in good standing to ask for recognition again on new and stricter terms. A copy of the new terms of recognition I shall submit; the conditions as now imposed deal with three principal things--the method of submission of applications (so devised as to prevent as far as possible competition between agencies, with the resultant temptation to bribe my staff, as had already been done); restriction of the charges to be made for their services; and supervision of their practice by the General Agent. As a pendant I at the same time made with the latter a contract, already referred to by the Accountant-General in terms of disapproval which incline me to the conclusion that he had completely misinterpreted its scope. I lay before the Commission a verbatim copy of that agree- ment. This new system has apparently been the cause of more criticism than any other one detail in my administration. The criticism began almost immediately after the coming into operation of the new agency system, and was first voiced in an article in the Chinese press signed with the name of a person who had just previously tried to bribe one of my staff to secure help in obtaining the general agency for himself. Thereafter the criticisin became anonymous, but its perennial source in the ranks of those whom I have elsewhere called disappointed racketeers may be legitimately inferred from the fact that Government is called upon to close down an institution to which no one resorts except voluntarily, and which will, as a commercial venture. itself apply the closure if it is, as alleged. inefficient and incapable of real service to the public who go to it. Ignorance may excuse some of the attacks on the system; but my conviction that most of it is motivated by loss of opportunities for racketeering amounts to a moral certainty.

To summarize the advantages to the public, to my department, and to Govern- ment of the General Agency system, it is sufficient to say that charges to the public were reduced, standardized and controlled; that photography was made reliable and . guaranteed as regards suitability; that overcrowding and over work in my office were reduced, though far from being abolished; that a measure of control over the opera- tions of agencies was established, so that it was at length possible to prevent the more flagrant malpractices, such as corruption of my staff with a view to securing priority of treatment, and the selling of false evidence; that the method of submission of applications was concentrated and coordinated which made possible the introduc- tion of a system of complete records of applications from the time of their making until the time of issue of the completed document demanded: that provision was made for supply of photographic facilities at spots where facilities were necessary because of incoming passenger traffic, but where owing to the sparsity or irregularity of such traffic a photographie studio could not be established on the basis of isolated commercial prospects.

To offset these advantages I know of one disadvantage only, and that one which I did not think should be regarded seriously from the standpoint of administration. It amounts to no more than this, that an advantage is given to one firm as against its competitors. This objection becomes important only if one regards a public depart-

Page 239

202

Page 239

Page 239