Stories from Deli

Deli Courant 07-12-1912

Although our telegrams yesterday already reported that the handling of the Indian budget has concluded with its adoption, we still provide below the explanation of the minister’s stance on the Chinese question, as evident from the Memorandum of Reply. The minister states therein:

Regarding the Chinese issue, the undersigned first wishes to assure that the resurgence of Chinese self-awareness—a phenomenon that has become even more apparent following recent events in China—has the full attention of the Government. While it can be conceded on one hand that a disregard for Dutch authority, stemming from the rise of Chinese national sentiment, would only be fueled by displays of weakness in the face of unjustified presumptions, on the other hand, it must undoubtedly be acknowledged that there is a growing conviction among the Chinese that they no longer need to consider themselves inferior to Westerners, and this has led to demands for changes in the relations in India, particularly the abolition of special regulations applying to them.

The undersigned believes that, to the extent that the pursuit of the latter direction is justified and aligns with our policy toward the native population, it should be accommodated. The seriousness of the Government’s intentions in this regard is evident, first and foremost, from the proposed amendment to police jurisdiction attached to the relevant budget, which the undersigned notes with satisfaction has received general approval.

In connection with complaints about what is exaggeratedly referred to as extortion and oppression by the police, it is further noted that consideration is being given to the idea of legally regulating and limiting the police’s authority to conduct house searches and inspect correspondence among natives and foreign Easterners. Additionally, it is being considered whether the remaining tax inequalities for foreign Easterners should be abolished. Finally, it can be reported that a proposal has been received from the Indian Government to make eligibility for certain offices, where Dutch citizenship is not required, contingent solely on the criterion of Dutch subjecthood.

Members who advocated for complete equality of the Chinese with Europeans overlooked the fact that a large portion of the Chinese population in India consists of coolies, originating from the lowest social class in China, who, in terms of education and civilization, cannot be considered suitable for such equality. However, as experience in India in recent years has shown, the demand for individual equality with Europeans among many educated and civilized Chinese—a category that will undoubtedly expand significantly in the near future due to improvements in educational organizations—can hardly be denied. Therefore, the undersigned deems it advisable to amend Article 109 of the Government Regulation, as per the law of December 31, 1906 (State Gazette No. 347), to allow, in the spirit of the amendment once defended by Representative Bogaardt, the possibility of equalizing foreign Easterners and natives with Europeans even after the new article takes effect.

While it is entirely correct that the possibility exists to acquire Dutch citizenship through naturalization and that the legal regulation of subjecthood also benefits the Chinese, the means of naturalization provides more than necessary—namely, Dutch citizenship, which is often not desired—and the legal regulation of subjecthood has not altered the relationship between the Chinese and Europeans. The undersigned is all the more convinced of the need to reintroduce individual equality, as it can also be applied to natives, and he shares the view of members who believe that general equality with Europeans, solely for the Chinese, would be unjustifiable in relation to the native population.

The undersigned can align with the perspective that every possible effort should be made to protect natives from extortion by Chinese, as well as by other usurers. It is primarily with a view to the potential for malicious practices by foreign Easterners in remote areas, where police supervision cannot yet be as intensive as in places located along major traffic routes, that the undersigned considers further relaxation of the already significantly softened pass system, as well as granting greater freedom of settlement, inadvisable for the time being. That leaving the decision on maintaining the already greatly expanded obligation to reside in specific neighborhoods to local authorities would be more in the interest of the individuals concerned is something the undersigned cannot yet see. For now, he believes it is better to leave this decision to the Government.

The need for education for the Chinese is being met as much as possible. However, given the available material and personnel resources, it is difficult to prevent the establishment of private schools for Chinese where the teachers do not understand the Dutch language. Regarding the idea raised in connection with this, whether teaching in Dutch should be made compulsory at Chinese and native private schools, even if these schools do not receive government subsidies, the undersigned shares the sentiment expressed by others that imposing such a requirement would be unfair, especially since Dutch is not taught at the majority of public native schools.

In response to the question of whether Chinese consuls have been involved in political affairs, the undersigned notes that until now, no consuls have been stationed in India. The first Chinese consul-general in Batavia has only been in office for a few months. That the authorities did not act with sufficient tact during the Chinese uprisings in Batavia and Surabaya is something the undersigned cannot concede. As explained in the response to the relevant question from Member of Parliament Mr. Hugenholtz (Appendix to the Proceedings 1911–12, pp. 45–47), in Batavia, peace was quickly restored through swift and decisive action, and in Surabaya, where the movement was much more serious and complex, the resident found effective means to end the resistance.

The events in Surabaya highlight that the connection between the uprisings and the hoisting of the flag of the Chinese Republic should not be overestimated. It is well known that no objection was raised to the display of the new flag there. While the Governor-General, at the outbreak of the unrest, held the view that the order given by the Attorney-General during the revolutionary turmoil in China to prevent the hoisting of the republican flag should be maintained until news of the Netherlands’ recognition of the new republic was received, and this order remained in force elsewhere, in Surabaya, different views prevailed. The resident of that region had, after the proclamation of the republic became known through newspaper reports, specifically consulted the Attorney-General by telegraph regarding the permission of the new flag, to which the judicial officer advised to take no notice of the republican flag.

The Attorney-General arrived at this advice by considering that the hoisting of the republican flag could no longer be seen as a protest against the legitimate Chinese Government, as the change in the form of government in China could no longer be doubted, and he deemed it self-evident that under the changed circumstances, the earlier instructions would no longer be generally upheld. Since the Governor-General was not immediately informed of this change in stance by the Attorney-General, there was indeed a brief period of lack of unity in views regarding the permission of the new flag.

This confusion might have been avoided if the undersigned could have timely informed the Indian Government of the official news received here regarding the proclamation of the republic and the composition of the new flag—although these facts in themselves had no influence on the Dutch Government’s stance toward China, as long as the question of the de facto recognition of the Republic of China was not yet on the agenda. However, the undersigned believes it necessary to emphasize once again in this context that, in his opinion, the flag issue is of secondary importance in relation to the causes of the Chinese uprisings, as clashes with authorities and police also occurred in places where no objection was made to the display of the new flag (Surabaya, the Straits Settlements, Japan).

For the requested information regarding the transfer of the advisor for Chinese affairs, Borel, the undersigned takes the liberty to refer to the response submitted simultaneously with this Memorandum to a question from Mr. Hugenholtz concerning this transfer. The undersigned believes he cannot comply with the request to submit Mr. Borel’s report on the disturbances (of which the undersigned knows nothing regarding an account to the Attorney-General) and all telegrams exchanged between the Indian Government and the authorities in Surabaya regarding the hoisting of the republican flag, based on his stance, repeatedly explained, regarding the submission of official correspondence.

The view that it is of great importance, especially under current circumstances, for the Indian Government to have advisors on Chinese affairs whom it fully trusts, is fully shared by the undersigned. To his knowledge, the current advisors, the officials for Chinese affairs, have generally given no cause for complaint regarding their manner of guidance and their capabilities. However, as the involvement with the Chinese in recent years has partly changed in character, in the sense that issues of foreign and general domestic politics have come to the forefront more than before, there has been a need in India for some time to modify the existing regulation of the scope of work of these officials (Indian State Gazette 1846 No. 96).

The Indian Government is therefore considering proposals aimed at establishing a separate branch for Chinese affairs under an expert chief and the addition of a Chinese bureau with extensive administrative authority to the residency offices in Batavia, Semarang, and Surabaya, under the leadership of the officials for Chinese affairs, who will be directly subordinated to the resident for regional service.

The undersigned also considers of great importance the idea brought up in connection with these proposals to promote the influence of the non-official element in specifically Chinese affairs of local importance by establishing advisory boards in the mentioned regions, consisting of Chinese residents, under the chairmanship of the officials for Chinese affairs, to advise on specifically Chinese affairs of territorial importance.

As no final proposals on this matter have yet been received from the Indian Government, the undersigned believes he must limit himself to the above communication.