March 21.
A delightfully frank correspondent avows his lack of sympathy with the suggestion that the British voter in the International Settlement should pay heed to the appeal by the British leaders for strong support of the five British "ticket" candidates, together with the two American and two Japanese can= didates in the forthcoming election. His reasons possibly reflect the opinion of others. They certainly explain the difficulty which confronts the leaders in impressing upon the community the vital importance of a revision of the habitual attitude hitherto adopted toward the annual election. With-jour pretending in any way to be able to shake his complacent cynicism, it may be permissible to commend certain considerations to him, blissful though his state of apathy may seem. The go-as-you-please methods of election suitable to the International Settlement in the spacious days and, to some extent, inspired by the rigidity of the Land Regulations, have been found unsatisfying by two communities: the Americans and Japjanese. They have organized what amounts to a "ticket" system. They settle their respective internal differences among themselves and then are able to present the exact number of candidates to fil the seats, allotted to them—not by Land Regulation but by a convention to which the British community tacitly subscribes. The working of that convention definitely implies the assumption by the British leaders of the right to speak for their community. In other words the British voter, in deliberately ensuring the return of the American and Japanese candidates in past years, has actually accepted the "ticket" principle in part and has acted as advised by the accredited leaders. Now he or she is Jasked to go further and adopt those [leaders' advice in regard to the five British seats, also allotted convention. It is, therefore, illogical to Jassume that the important step taken by the three representative British organizations is incompatible with the general spirit of [the community's electoral of tions.
The British community is well-provided with machinery for giving to the views of its rank and file an opportunity for expression. There jate the National Societies, the British Chamber of Commerce and the China Association and the British Residents' Association.
Every man and women in the community is eligible for membership of the British Residents' Associa~ tion, The National Societies and the British Women's Association have nominees on its Ex~ ecutive Committee. The British Chamber of Commerce and the China Association are open to the influence of views which can be presented through constitutional channels and, if generally acceptable, find adoption. The other organizations give sufficient scope for the ventilation of all views re~ garding their policy, methods and machinery. Therefore, the ecutive of these organizations are entitled to regard themselves as accredited leaders. If they are unable to command a following, the proper time and place for emphasizing that point is when and where the annual or special meetings are held, under the terms of their respective constitutions. It is quite irrelevant to use or withhold the municipal vote in an international election to enforce a domestic grievance. It is more than irrelevant: it 1s waste of time; an empty gesture of irresponsibility, which suggests that it is merely a cloak for laziness or, to use the politer term, apathy. This year the preliminary discussions of the international convention, disclosed the fact that the Japanese community, pressed by certain of its organizations, was desirous of putting up three candidates (or even more) in the belief that the British community's interest in the election was negligible, This pellet had superficial support in the poor percentage of the British vote secur= ing register at the poll, during Jong period of years. Whether the various British executives should have distrusted their own leader~ ship and summoned special general meetings to put the matter to their constituents, may be a matter of opinion. Practical consideration for public convenience and a not un-
Reasonable confidence in the com= munity's general intelligence, in= duced them to act as spokesmen for British interests and to meet the Japanese argument with the under= taking that ye British candidates carrying the community's overwhelming endorsement would be nominated. On that understanding the Japanese adhered to the un= written convention or "gentleman's agreement" by confining themselves to two candidates as in former years, The Japanese attitude has been honourable, friendly and con side rate, "The Japanese leaders have shown leadership and their followers reasoned discipline, Yet it {s perfectly clear that they regard this election—if it actually takes place—as a test of the British com= munity's good faith and interest in the Settlement's affairs. The return of the five British "ticket" candidates with what Maxroxrre alclusively describes as "the usual beg early number of votes," will xive some colour to the British leaders' assessment of their countrymen's views. Tt will not dispose of the charge of apathy. That can only be met by ensuring such an emphatic vote in support of the British "ticket" candidates that there is no valid ground for asserting, either that British interest in the Settlement's affairs is faint or that the British vote is a negligible factor in election contests. No criticism can be levelled at the Japanese for raising this issue. They are anxious to meet their own community's demand for the assertion of a greater measure of Japanese influence over the administration of the Settlement.
They perceive how the franchise can be used to satisfy these demands, so long as British apathy persists. They pertinently argue that if the British community is not able to poll more than 35 per cent. of its strength, then it cannot be as interested in municipal affairs as the 82 per cent. which represents the Japanese vote. They will not be impressed by the excuses which Maxronite makes to ferity his apathy. They will, indeed, point out that this shows that the British community is disorganized and that, apparently accredited leaders lack the first essential of leadership—the disciplined support of fol-Towers. Once again, let it be stressed that it is not a question of the suitability of the British
Text read from the printed page and cleaned; old type leaves the occasional error.