PERSONAL AND CONFIDENTIAL
present UK/Hong Kong relationship.
There are clearly limits to what you yourself can (or should) do. It occurred to us that the new members of the Legislative Council, such as Father McGovern, Mrs Bennett and Leung Tak-Shin, who were appointed to represent the interests of the working population, might perhaps be encouraged to speak out more often and more forcibly in support of your programme. Could your senior officials do more to correct the impression that HMG is forcing the Hong Kong Government to adopt measures that are not in the best interests of Hong Kong? What do you think?
5. I am also concerned, as I am sure you are, about the leaks that appear to be at the basis of recent press comments. I notice for example, that the Press Review for the period 8-14 December contains a fairly long summary of the views of the Hong Kong press about your own future. Some of what was said was so accurate that it looks as if it must have been based on leaks from official sources. Other examples are the press reports referred to in pragraph 2 of Hong Kong telegram No 1219 of 7 December about David Ford being "exchanged for a Diplomatic Service officer" and the story reported in paragraph 1 of Hong Kong telegram No 1231 of 1 December about Wiggham's appointment to Ford's job.
5. In considering the distortions about British "interference" I have looked again at your letter of 6 October to Lord Goronwy- Roberts in which you said that there was "a whispering campaign of 'pressure from the UK'" and that it must have been "fuelled either by things said by backbenchers or officials in London, or by people sensing how they feel even though it has not been put into words". I should make it clear that officials here have done nothing to feed suspicions that HMG is imposing its views on Hong Kong. We have consistently stuck to the line that I used with Craig-White (my letter of 17 September and your reply of 24 September) and which you have maintained, namely, that HMG and the Hong Kong Government both have responsibilities for the welfare of the population of Hong Kong and that there is a constant exchange of views between the two governments about how these responsibilities should be discharged as circumstances change. Lord Goronwy-Roberts, who has seen the Press Review for 8-14 December, has minuted: "The development of social policy has been mutual and has been going on for some time" and I note that you yourself made frequent references to this continuing "dialogue" at your press conference. What more can we jointly do to correct such distortions about the UK/Hong Kong relationship?
2
HA H Cortazzi
PERSONAL AND CONFIDENTIAL