1
1
RESTRICTED
From:
J Houston
Date:
CC:
13 January, 1988 PS
PS/Lord Glenarthur PS/Mr Eggar
Mr Gillmore
HKB 040/2, Mr McLaren
weap
PRU
Cry 5 J 1988
Mrs Bottomley
56
Mr Hum HKD
DEBATE ON HONG KONG
I have the
1. Thank you for your minute dated 12 January. following comments on the draft speech for the Secretary of State.
2. I think the structure is probably right for the Commons, though I would like to have an opportunity for second thoughts about this(!) And I am not aware of any touchy issues which are neglected in the draft (but see para 8 below).
"
3. In para 9 we, as usual, say that drafting of the Basic Law is a matter for the Chinese Government. Would it not be appropriate to add a phrase such as
within the context of the Joint Declaration". After all, have the Chinese not committed themselves to a Basic Law which is within certain parameters?
*
...
4 I find paras 11 and 12 rather defensive, and I have great difficulty in understanding what the first sentence of para 12 is getting at. I suggest the two paragraphs should be amalgamated along the following lines:
5.
"We do not see any contradiction whatever between the fostering of our bilateral relationship with China and our commitment to Hong Kong. We are upholding Hong Kong's interests to the full. And we are convinced that it is a relationship of cooperation and mutual trust between Britain and China which is most conducive to the maintenance of Hong Kong's stability and prosperity over the testing years ahead. Both Governments are acutely conscious of the need to sustain Hong Kong and uphold confidence. Both Governments appreciate the need for the concerns of Hong Kong people to be heeded."
In para 18, is it possible to identify the independence of the Monitors a bit more precisely (eg by saying who they are, or why they are "independent").
6.
In para 26 I think the last sentence is very dodgy and will need considerable refinement to get right. At the moment it sounds as if we are saying letting Hong Kong people express their opinions is all very well, but we know better. Not only that but we know what those people who didn't express a view would have said if they The first part of this may be true, though not a very liberal concept, but do we need to say it?
had!
RESTRICTED