University of Warwick Undergraduate Research Support Scheme
The British government would appear unjust if it just applied the educational regulation to the communist schools. Therefore, it justified its anti-communist educational policies by stressing that they did not target the communists.
1. The Closure of Chung Wah Middle School
In August 1958, the British Police Force enforced a court order to close the Chung Wah Middle School. It was because the roof timbers of the building “had rotted and the floor had been eaten white ants”, making the building unsafe for any purposes.
​
After the closure, the leftist press accused the British government of “suppress[ing] patriotic education” and the Police Force of being illegally violent.
​
In response, they issued a statement to the local press, stressing the apolitical reasons and legal grounds for the closure order.[1]
​
​​
​​
​
​
​
​
[1] FO 371/133338
[2] National Archive, FO 371/133339, ‘Communist activities in schools in Hong Kong’
​
-
The government just “protected children and others from the physical dangers of unsafe buildings”
-
It was the police’s responsibility to carry out the Courts’ orders.
-
The police only employed minimum force to enforce the court order, according to an official full inquiry into the police operation.[2]
​
The British government stressed that the closure was not a political decision.
It was just a normal legal procedure against a dangerous building.
Sir Robert Black, Governor
Image via Wikipedia of HK Government Public Record Office
2. The registration of a new communist school
​
After the British government deregistered Chung Wah School in 1968, a group of communists applied for founding a new school on the same premise. Despite the potential communist threat, the British government emphasised that they shall deal with the registration of any new schools impartially.
​
The British government would like to show that they treated all schools in Hong Kong fairly under the same set of laws.
Sir James Murray, Head of Far East Department, Foreign and Commonwealth Office
"…any subsequent application for the registration of a new school in the existing premises under a new name, staff and management would be judged on the same criteria as applications to register any other new schools.”
Sir David Trench, Governor
"We cannot reject to reasonably well-conducted schools just because they are communists."
Image via Wikipedia of HK Government Public Record Office
Sir Percy Cradock, Charge d’Affaires, China
"Applications to open new schools…were being dealt with in the normal way.”[3]
​
​
​
​
​
​
​
​
[3] 'Communist activities in schools', FCO 40/88
3. "Non-discriminatory"​
The British government sought to keep their impartial gesture under other circumstances.
For instance, the colonial government once suggested regulating the textbooks in pro-Kuomintang schools to show that it was not unreasonably harsh to the communist schools.[4]
​
Officials of the colonial government had also proposed to slow down the registration of new communist schools with “legal or administrative delays” so that the government did not appear “blatantly discriminatory”.[5]
​
The impartial attitude of the British government helped it maintain a positive image of fairness. It could also avoid unnecessary conflicts with the communists in Hong Kong and the CCP, hence keeping a peaceful co-existence them.
​
Despite the principle of being non-discriminatory, it is how the Governor thought when he considered tightening the Education Ordinance in 1968:
​
​
​
​
​
Sir David Trench, Governor
“All the above measures…would be applied to schools generally and without discrimination against communist schools. They would, however, tend to hit communist schools harder than others.”
Then, is there a ‘discrimination’?
[4] FO 371/133339
[5] FCO 40/89