31 Jul 1942, John Charter's wartime journal

After about a week a reply was received from the B.C.C. and also placed upon the notice board. It condemned our committee for making their attack public before enquiring what steps the Communal Council had taken to clear up the matter; the reply stated that our committee would have been acquainted with the fact that a thorough investigation was being conducted by the Canteen Committee under the chairmanship of Mr. Newbigging; that no signature by the chairman of the B.C.C. had been appended to the balance sheet pending the findings of the committee; that the whole state of canteen affairs would have been supplied to our committee if they had only taken the trouble to enquire, that it was virtually casting aspertions on the canteen committee etc. and finally the B.C.C. felt obliged to pass a strong vote of censure on the conduct of our committee. Our committee promptly replied that none of their specific questions had been answered by the B.C.C.; that no body of people should have to make enquiries in camera for an explanation of the state of affairs; that, in effect, any member of the public was as entitled to an explanation as was any block committee and again concluded by a request (or demand) for a full and public enquiry.

After about another week the B.C.C. again replied, regretting the aggressive and unhelpful attitude that our commitee had adopted and suggesting that our committee might be satisfied that everything possible was being done if a representative of theirs joined the committee investigating the canteen affairs (this, by the way, after the B.C.C. had passed a vote of censure!). Our committee refused to become involved in the affairs of the B.C.C., stating again that no unsigned balance sheet should have been published as it was a most unbusiness-like method of procedure and pressing for a prompt and full explanation.

Well, the matter rested and has rested. Our committee certainly gave the B.C.C. several bad headaches and in my opinion did a public service. The canteen system was reorganised considerably and a system of checking in all departments was devised and put into operation. The money and goods had definitely been stolen and the canteen staff, were cleared of all blame. I suppose that amount has to be written off as a loss to welfare funds. A 7% profit was made on all canteen purchases, which went to the Welfare account for the purpose of supplying really needy cases with clothing, special vitamin foods, fruit etc.

Since that incident the public have become more critical of the B.C.C. and it was also felt that the Colonial Secretary, Gimson, would be better qualified to deal with the Japanese authorities about all aspects of camp life. At present the C.S. is consulted by the Japanese concerning government affairs such as repatriation (particularly of people normally resident in Shanghai who were caught in HK by the outbreak of war), matters concerning the activities of the International Red Cross in HK etc. The British Communal Council is consulted, or in turn raises requests, protests etc. about affairs concerning Stanley Camp conditions only. Thus representation is divided, making it more difficult for the Japanese and making our position weaker than it would be if all matters relevant to British subjects were under the direction of a smaller and more powerful Council under the chairmanship of Gimson.

This feeling at length found expression in a resolution that the existing Communal Council should resign and that a new Council should be elected, consisting of 8 members and with Gimson as Chairman. This resolution was canvassed in all blocks and the requisite number (according to the constitution of the Council) of 250 signatures was trebled or quadrupled. Mr Gimson had been approached and said that though it placed him in an awkward, or rather, embarrassing position, he felt, as representative of the Crown, that he should assume the Chairmanship of the Council.