no
- 2 -
c)
He concludes that it would be contra- productive to press specific reforms too hard or too fast from London. He is
K
absolutely right particularly having regard to (a).
For the rest, Michael's paper records, as he insists, no more than impressions, and I do not think it would be helpful or productive for me to send a critique on the work of an acknowledged authority. I agree with some of his impressions, not with others as drafted, and I look forward to seeing him again and talking about it. My only general criticism is that the paper fails to reflect the extraordinary speed of change in Hong Kong, including growth in the size of the budget, social and economic programmes, and of the civil service, and our commitment to continue these changes over many years ahead.
These are the dominant economic, administrative and political facts in Hong Kong at this moment.
Sir Michael Palliser GCMG Foreign & Commonwealth Office London SW1
112
3