Chinese Consular Representation in British Hong Kong
Bibliographic Data
| ID | 2890621 |
|---|---|
| Authors | Peter Wesley-Smith (University of Hong Kong, corresponding author) |
| Year | 1998 |
| Volume | 71 |
| Issue | 3 |
| Pages | 359 |
| Publication date | 1998-01-01 |
| Peer Reviewed | Yes |
| Open Access | No |
| Type | ARTICLE |
| Venue | Pacific Affairs (JOURNAL) |
| Journal identifiers | ISSN: 0030-851X • E-ISSN: 1715-3379 |
| Publisher | JSTOR (PUBLISHER) |
| DOI | 10.2307/2761415 |
| OpenAlex | W2327004188 |
| Language | EN |
I NJANUARY 1948 the Hong Kong Executive Council decided that, as part of the settlement for the Shameen incident,' His Majesty's Government should demand the establishment in Hong Kong of a Chinese consulate general.2 This, though anticipated in 1940, was an extraordinary decision, because opinion in the colony, both government and lay, had been consistently and adamantly opposed to the presence of any official representative of the Chinese government. No Chinese consulate was ever set up in Hong Kong, though there were requests for one right up to 1979. An account of this issue illustrates one major theme of Hong Kong history: distrust of the Chinese government and a conviction that its representatives would create endless trouble for the colonial authorities. China, on the other hand, although apparently uncertain about the implications for her claim to territorial sovereignty over Hong Kong, persisted in attempts to secure official representation in Hong Kong and had to resort to the local branch of the New China News Agency in lieu of more formal and satisfactory arrangements. Chinese citizens were entitled to expect a representative of their government to be stationed there and assist them but therein lay the practical problem so far as the Hong Kong authorities were concerned, for there was no easy way to distinguish between British citizens of Chinese descent and subjects of China. The issue is no longer a live one, of course, or at least it now, on China's resumption of the exercise of sovereignty over Hong Kong on 1 July 1997, has a quite different complexion. The story begins with the prolonged controversy regarding customs administration and whether a Chinese customs officer should be permitted to operate in the colony; it continues with the question of appointment of a Chinese telegraphs officer. Intertwined with these issues was whether HMG ought to allow a consul, or consul general, to represent the Chinese government. The paper examines this matter in some detail and concludes
Ancient history · Political science · Politics · Representation (politics) · European Criminal Justice and Data Protection · History · Hong Kong and Taiwan Politics · Law · Political Systems and Governance
| Citation velocity | historical |
|---|---|
| Highly cited | No |