Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-dsjbd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-22T06:21:36.928Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Plans for Constitutional Reform in Hong Kong, 1946—52

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  17 February 2009

N. J. Miners
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Hong Kong has never taken the path of constitutional development towards democratic self-government followed by the rest of Great Britain's colonial empire. In 1984 the Legislative and Executive Councils were still composed entirely of officials and unofficials nominated by the Governor without a single elected member, just as they have been for the past 140 years. This anomalous position has commonly been justified in two ways: the official explanation is that there have been no demands for democratic institutions voiced by the people of Hong Kong; unofficially ministers and officials have claimed that the People's Republic of China objects to free elections and Britain has found it expedient to give heed to China's views. This has never been publicly and unambiguously admitted by any Minister of the Crown while in office to avoid diplomatic embarrassment, but a large number of comments and replies to parliamentary questions can be quoted which leave little doubt that this is in fact the case. It seems that the Chinese People's Government has always equated democratic constitutional advance in Hong Kong with moves to grant independence to the territory and so has imposed her veto on any changes which might preclude the future resumption of Chinese sovereignty. But now that Britain has formally declared her intention to restore the whole of Hong Kong to China in 1997 China has in turn declared that after 1997“The legislature of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region shall be constituted by elections,” and is apparently prepared to waive her longstanding objections to democratic developments in the intervening 12 years before Hong Kong reverts to Chinese sovereignty.

Type
Research Article
Information
The China Quarterly , Volume 107 , September 1986 , pp. 463 - 482
Copyright
Copyright © The China Quarterly 1986

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1. See for example the remarks by MrBlaker, Peter, a former Minister of State at the. Foreign Office in House of Commons Debates, 16 05 1984, p. 455Google Scholar: “There are very good reasons why we have not developed representative institutions in Hong Kong: Peking would have viewed such a development with alarm.” See also the remarks ofGoronwy-Roberts, Lord in House of Lords Debates, 21 07 1976, p. 844Google Scholar and 22 November 1978, p. 975.

2. Draft Agreement Between the Government of the United Kingdom and the Government of the People's Republic of China on the Future of Hong Kong, 26 September 1984, p. 15, Annex I, Section I.

3. For details of constitutional agitation in the 19th century seeEndacott, G. B., Government and People in Hong Kong 1841–1962 (Hong Kong: Hong Kong University Press, 1964), pp. 43Google Scholar; 87, 109, 119–25.

4. Public Record Office, London, Colonial Office (CO.) 129/479, p. 474, Stubbs to Devonshire, 14 March 1923.

5. CO. 129/509/14 p. 18, Minute by Ballard on telegram of 8 October 1928.

6. Hong Kong Legislative Council Sessional Papers 1939, Taxation Committee Report, p. 97.

7. Endacott, , Government and People in Hong Kong, pp. 45–55 and 98–103Google Scholar;

8. The China Association was founded in 1889 to represent the interests of business firms trading with China. For its early history seePelcovits, N.A., Old China Hands and the Foreign Office (New York: King's Crown Press, 1948)Google Scholar;

9. CO. 537/1650, Minutes of the meetings of 1 May, 29 May and 1 August 1945. Morse and Swire were advised by Major J. R. Jones, formerly secretary of the Shanghai Municipality, who contributed memoranda to the committee, which can be found at 2 and 8A in the file.

The history of the Shanghai municipality can be found inHaan, J. H., “Origin and development of the political system in the Shanghi International Settlement,” Journal of the Hong Kong Branch of the Royal Asiatic Society, Vol. 22 (1982), pp. 31–64Google Scholar;

10. This was an argument commonly put forward by the Hong Kong administration to rebut any proposal for the establishment of a municipality. See for example the speech ofSirClementi, Cecil, Hong Kong Hansard, 23 01 1930, p. 15Google Scholar: “This colony is so small and compact that it is in effect a large township, and the government of Hong Kong is, and must always be, mainly concerned with municipal affairs. I regard myself as being in effect Mayor of Hong Kong; and were I and the principal officers of this government to divest ourselves of our municipal duties, there would be little left for us to do. The creation of municipalities would duplicate the administrative machinery of the colony to an intolerable extent.” Similar comments were made by clementi's successor, Sir William Peel, on a proposal for the creation of a municipality put forward by the Retrenchment Committee of 1930, see CO. 129/534/3 Peel to Passfield, 22 May 1931 .

11. CO. 537/1650 Minute by Ruston dated 8 April 1946.

12. CO. 537/1650 Minutes by Lloyd of discussions with Sir Mark Young dated 4 January and 18 January 1946. Young was also given details of the conclusions reached at discussions organized by the colonial secretary, F. G. Gimson, in Stanley Prison Camp during the Japanese occupation. These had no apparent effect on Young's future recommendations. Gimson to Ruston, 3 March 1946 in CO. 537/1650.

13. Colonial Office Confidential Print, Eastern, CO. 882/31 p. 14, Grantham to Creech Jones, 25 August 1949.

14. CO. 537/1650 MacDougall to Gaiter, 5 December 1945. MacDougall returned to Hong Kong with the Military Administration holding the rank of brigadier. He became colonial secretary when civil government was restored.

15. South China Morning Post (Hong Kong), 29 08 1946Google Scholar; The submission by the General Chamber of Commerce is in South China Morning Post, 18 September 1946. CO. 537/1651 Young to Creech Jones, 22 October 1946 .

16. CO. 537/1651 Young to Creech Jones, 22 October 1946. Also in CO. 882/31 pp. 2–9.

17. CO. 537/1651 Young to Creech Jones, 22 October 1946 Confidential; and CO. 882/31 pp. 10–11.

18. For example, when in 1926 the Governor of Hong Kong proposed the appointment of a Chinese member to the Executive Council for the first time, the Colonial Office consulted the Governor of the Straits Settlements, CO. 129/493 pp. 83–84, 25 June 1926.

19. CO. 537/1651. Minutes by Lloyd, 12 December 1946, Caine, 16 December, and meeting with Gaiter, 18 December. Draft by Ruston and Mayle dated 30 December 1946.

20. CO. 537/1651 Minute by Creech Jones, 18 January 1947; telegram to Governor, 25 January 1947.

21. CO. 537/2188 Young to Creech Jones, 7 February 1947.

22. In fact 214 per cent of the Chinese population of Hong Kong island and Kowloon told the census enumerators that they had been born in the colony, and so could have laid claim to British nationality if they had wished to do so, or had understood the question, Hong Kong Legislative Council Sessional Papers 1931, Report on the Census, pp. 127 and 131, Tables 24 and 25.

23. Minute by Seel, 18 February 1947, endorsed by Caine, 19 February 1947, in CO. 537/2188.

24. CO. 537/2188, Creech Jones to Officer Administering the Government (O.A.G.), 3 July 1947, South China Morning Post, 24 July 1947.

25. CO. 537/2188 Colonial Office to O.A.G. 29 April and 30 May 1947; O.A.G. to Colonial Office, 5 June 1947. For other detailed revisions of the proposals see the 1947 and 1948 files, CO. 537/2188 and CO. 537/2189.

26. Grantham to Creech Jones, 25 August 1949, paragraph 10 in CO. 882/31 p. 15.

27. CO. 882/31 p. 15. Hong Kong Government Gazette, Supplement 3, 3 June 1949, p. 341.

28. CO. 537/2189 Colonial Office to Grantham, 18 November 1948; Grantham to Colonial Office, 1 December 1948. Public Record Office, Hong Kong, Minutes of the Executive Council, 30 November 1948.

29. Hong Kong Hansard: Reports of the Meetings of the Legislative Council of Hong Kong, 1949 Session, pp. 91, 115, 137.

30. Ibid. pp. 188–205. There is a detailed summary of the debate inEndacott, , Government and People in Hong Kong, pp. 189–94Google Scholar;

31. Confidential Print, Eastern, CO. 882/31 pp. 14–21. Grantham to Secretary of State, 25 August 1949. The Colonial Office file for 1949 has not yet been released to the Public Record Office.

32. CO. 537/6046 Minute by Creech Jones, 6 January 1950.

33. CO. 537/6046 Minutes of discussions with Grantham at the Colonial Office, 21 June to 25 July 1950.

34. The unofficial Justices of the Peace numbered 142 in 1950. There were some 400 firms represented in the General Chamber of Commerce and a similar number in the Chinese Chamber of Commerce. The jury list used for the Urban Council election contained some 4,000 names in 1947, but the members to be elected by the jurors would be outnumbered by the six appointed members of the Urban Council when choosing the representatives to sit on the Legislative Council.

35. CO. 537/6046 Paskin to Nicoll, 14 August; Nicoll to Paskin, 6 September; Sidebotham to Nicoll, 10 October; Grantham to Paskin, 7 November 1950. The main change in Grantham's original proposals was the addition of one more unofficial member. At first it was proposed that he should be elected by the social welfare agencies, but it was finally decided that he should be nominated by the Governor.

36. F.O. 371/C.10117 Shattock to Sidebotham, 28 December 1950. Also in CO. 882/31 p. 24.

37. CO. 882/31 p. 25, Grantham to Paskin, 21 February 1951.

38. Sunday Post Herald (Hong Kong), 30 10 1951Google Scholar; South China Morning Post, 12, 13, 14 December 1951; Minutes of the Executive Council, 18 December 1951 .

39. CO. 882/31 p. 25, Grantham to Paskin, 8 January 1952. F.O. 371/99251 Sidebotham to Johnson, 19 March 1952.

40. F.O. 371/99251 Sidebotham to Johnson, 19 March 1952.

41. Hong Kong Government Gazette, Extraordinary Supplement, 3 June 1952.

42. CO. 882/31 p. 28, Grantham to Sidebotham, 26 June 1952 . SirGrantham, Alexander, Via Ports, Hong Kong to Hong Kong (Hong Kong: Hong Kong University Press, 1965), p. 112Google Scholar; CAB 128/25 18 September 1952. House ofCommons Debates, 20 October 1952, Written Answer, p. 70 .

43. House of Commons Debates, 24 February 1954, pp. 396–97.

44. Sunday Post Herald, 30 October 1960. Hong Kong Hansard, 9 November 1960, p. 335.

45. Miners, N. J., The Government and Politics of Hong Kong (Hong Kong: Oxford University Press, 1981), p. 71Google Scholar;

46. Mr Henry Hu Hung-lick, Mr Wong Lam and Rev. P. T. McGovern, S.J. Since then several others who were not British subjects have been nominated to the Legislative Council, as can be seen from the fact that their awards of C.B.E.s and O.B.E.s are honorary. Fr. McGovern informed me that he had been asked by the Governor if he would object to swearing allegiance to the Queen, and he had replied that he had no objection to pledging allegiance to the Queen of Hong Kong.