Sen 168
210
2
к иней
Sir P Cradock
PS/Mr Luce Minister
Private Secretary
SECRET
W
FROM: R D CLIFT,
HKD
DATE: 15 MARCH,
1984
Rikk 90/14
RECEIVED DICAUITRY
30 MAR 1984
PS
PS/Mr Luce
PS/PUS
Sir W Harding
Dr Wilson
Mr Burrows, Legal Adviser Mr Thomson, FED
TIARY
PA
ROANTRY
Aunion 1 2N
Mr Walker,
Department
Research
FUTURE OF HONG KONG: ACCEPTABILITY
·
+
1. I submit a draft paper on how to test the acceptability of any agreement on the future of the territory to the people of Hong Kong. It is based on an original paper by the Governor, adapted to take account of our recent decisions on strategy and timetable.
2.
The paper considers the, various options open to us. It rules out a referendum, an assessment of public opinion by an independent commission or a government-sponsored opinion poll, on the grounds of Chinese opposition, and concludes that the best way forward would be to generate a public debate in Hong Kong through EXCO, LEGCO and other public bodies. This process would fall into three stages:
(a) after the Secretary of State's statement in Hong Kong in April; (b) after a further Ministerial statement later in the summer; and (c) after publication of the agreement in September. In the first
two stages discussion would be spontaneous: in the last it would?
3.
be more actively solicited.
A
This will be a politically hazardous procedure. We will have to strike a balance between the need to demonstrate to Parliament that the agreement is acceptable to Hong Kong, and the need not to antagonise the Chinese to such an extent that they either back out of the talks or frustrate our attempts to sound opinion in Hong Kong. The paper argues that the best way to steer a middle course lies in a gradual revelation of the plan. This process would need to be explained in advance, in general terms, to the Chinese. We would seek to explain that we were not trying to play the 'public opinion. card', but to facilitate Parliamentary approval of an agreement which both Governments want. This will be exceedingly difficult.
4. The procedure outlined in the paper must remain flexible, and at this stage should not be made public. We need however to have a clear idea of what we are aiming at, and whether this will ultimately be acceptable to Parliament. If the Secretary of State agrees, we should put the draft paper to Hong Kong and Peking for comments and then to OD (K).
I
Ship
R D Clift
15 March 1984
SECRET
Hong Kong Department