119
Q
18
MINUTES OF EVIDENCE TAKEN BEFORE THE EXPENDITURE COMMITTEE
9 December 1975]
[Continued
Mr D F HAWLEY, CMG, MBE, Mr K C THOм, Mr A C Goodison, CMG, Mr P L O'Keeffe, CVO, Mr G W HOPCROFT, Mr D F MILTON and Mr D F BURDEN
Mr Conlan
83. If there is a tripartite interest in maintaining the status quo in Hong Kong, does that not now mean that the year 1997 has no relevance?-A-(Mr Hawley.) The year 1997 has official re- levance, and one cannot just write it off, Everything would turn on the political relations between the three members of the tripartite interest.
66
Is Q
84. We are only 20 years away. there no contingency planning for events that may well occur in 1997?-A (Mr O'Keeffe.) I think one would start by an expression of the Chinese Govern- ment's attitude to the problem. This was given public expression in a letter of the 8th March 1972 from the Permanent Representative of China to the United Nations to the Chairman of the Special Committee on decolonisation of the General Assembly, and the relevant extract goes as follows: As it is known to all, the questions of Hong Kong and Macao belong to the category of ques- tions resulting from the series of unequal treaties left over by history, treaties which the imperialists imposed on China. Hong Kong and Macao are part of Chinese territory occupied by the British and Portuguese authorities. The settle- ment of the questions of Hong Kong and Macao is entirely within China's sovereign right, and does not at all fall under the ordinary category of "colonial With regard to the questions of Hong Kong and Macao, the Chinese Government has consistently held that they should be settled in an appropriate way when conditions are ripe."
territories
85. If the Chinese do insist on the terms of the treaty that would mean that all that territory north of Pardley Street would revert to the Republic, but we understand from the Governor in Hong Kong, and we have had this con- firmed again today, that without the New Territories Kowloon and Hong King might just as well cease to exist because they will be unviable without the New Territories. In that case is it likely that if the Chinese insist on the full imple- mentation of the 1898 treaty, if that is the date, they may as well take the whole of Hong King and not merely the New Territories? It follows from the state- ment that the Chinese representative
made in the United Nations that they sec no distinction between these treaties under which Hong Kong was set up,
The logic of the present Chinese Government's position seems to point to the future of all three as being indistinguishable. Beyond that point one cannot go at this stage. It is too far in the future for us to speculate on what might be the position.
.
86. Twenty years is not a very long time, and at the moment there is already a very heavy investment in the New Territories in the building of the satellite towns, and presumably there will be additional military expenditure in the New Territories to replace existing assets in Hong Kong itself. Is it fair to say that the policy decisions affecting these investment decisions are being made on the assumption that there will be a con- tinuing British presence in Hong Kong, irrespective of any date I may refer to? AI think these decisions are taken
because there is faith in the future of Hong Kong, and the only policy we can now adopt is one of regarding the future of Hong Kong as a viable entity. More than that one cannot say
The decisions are taken in the interests of the people of Hong Kong There is no other viable policy.
Mr Roper
"
* *
colo-
87. First of all, in the light of the statement made by the Chinese delegate at the United Nations, is it sensible that we go on using the phrase colonial secretary
or the "governor nial government", and so on?-A-There has been a tendency to drop the term colony” and “colonial ” in reference to Hong Kong. Normal public references to Hong Kong are just "Hong Kong'
* *
i