CONFIDENTIAL
6
LOCAL ENGLISH-LANGUAGE PRESS:
Britain should abandon fantasies: The SCMP printed details of an "authoritative article" in the Ta Kung Pao (reported in last week's summary) which unequivocally ruled out any British participation in the administration of HK when China regained sovereignty in 1997. The article also lashed out at Lord Belstead and other British officials over the "three-legged stool" concept and advised Britain to abandon such "fantasies" as the validity of the three treaties, the three-legged partnership, and surrendering sovereignty but retaining administration. When China recovered HK, except for the change of the flag and the absence of a British governor, everything would remain basically unchanged. The SCMP leader on 30 January dwelt on the misunderstanding of Lord Belstead's "three-legged stool" metaphor, questioning where the left-wing papers had got the idea that Lord Belstead was urging a troika. Some room for misunderstanding had arisen over remarks by the Urbco chairman that the three legged arrangement should be allowed to continue for another 30 years at least: what he seemed to be saying was that it would be in the interests of all if we could in some way harness the co-operation of China, Britain and the HK people in working for the territory's long term stability and prosperity.
Article about Meeting Point in FEER: The most recent edition of the Far Eastern Economic Review had an article by Mary Lee about Meeting Point, the new pressure group, saying it had got off to a poor start; its invocation of Chinese nationalism had stirred more anger than support. Government officials privately expressed concern that Meeting Point's advocacy of self-rule under Chinese sovereignty was too close to Beijing's line for comfort. Were the group to gain popular support, this could erode London's chances of securing some form of British administration beyond 1997. Meeting Point was also commanding attention in Government circles because its founders were social activists who had grassroots support and proven organisational ability. The article outlined an attack on the group in the Economic Journal which questioned the widespread publicity the group had received in local left-wing papers, implying that the organisation was a political front for Beijing. The Review mentioned a tiny strip of common ground existing between people as diverse as Meeting Point's chairman, Mr. Lau Nai-keong, the HK Observers and some young businessmen, none of whom disputed that HK was Chinese territory; they wanted a self-governing HK and professed to have the interests of the people at heart.
Intellectuals who are afraid should leave: The Standard on 27 January carried the comments of CU lecturer, Dr. Kwok Siu-tong, who said it would not be a bad idea for some intellectuals to leave HK if they feared their freedom to criticise might be curbed after 1997. Political changes after 1997 might produce an identity crisis for some people: he feared China might not be ready to face harsh criticisms and that it might be better for some intellectuals to stay outside the system if they wanted to be independent. He cited Dr. Sun Yat-sen as an example.
Comments of CBI correspondent: The SCMP on 26 January printed the comments of Mr. Leonard Rayner, regional correspondent for the Confederation of British Industry. Mr. Rayner, in a lecture, said there were clear indications that Lord MacLehose, Sir Percy Cradock and Sir Edward Youde carried considerable weight with the PM in her evolution of China policy. So far as Mrs. Thatcher was concerned the future of HK was the key
CONFIDENTIAL