government and who generally have been good citizens. It does not seem logical that illegal refugees for whom Britain has no responsibility should get precedence over loyal subjects.
(d) It is perhaps not surprising that local politicians have caught onto a highly visible and emotive issue to make a name for themselves. Of course we, in Hong Kong, would like to be rid of the refugee problem and the costs, financial and otherwise, associated therewith but I see no reason for Britain to have to pay for the geographic accident of Hong Kong's location. The responsibility is primarily Vietnam's and secondly France's and the United States'. However we have to accept that the British Government makes better newspaper copy than the governments of the countries with more direct responsibilty.
(e) Whilst every local Hong Kong resident would like to be rid of the problem - and we do not want to be considered totally lacking in human charity - I do not believe that assistance from Britain will solve this complex problem. The refugees in Hong Kong are in fact accommodated comfortably by their standards, they are well fed and receive a standard of medical attention which is unheard of in Vietnam. Furthermore Hong Kong can afford the cost of maintaining these people.
It remains my view that Hong Kong must shoulder the burden of this problem, try to encourage repatriation to Vietnam, allow those persons who arrived before the relevant date to work in Hong Kong provided they return to the open camps and leave the recent arrivals to be housed in closed camps. Furthermore every effort should be made to inform the Vietnamese that new arrivals will not be granted residency in foreign countries as of right just the opposite. The corollary of this line of thinking is that Hong Kong will pay the cost. So be it! We cannot expect Britain to bear the burden of humanitarian responsibility particularly if we, in Hong Kong, are not prepared to bear it ourselves.
Yours sincerely,
2
Dr. Natesa
-
c.c. Mr. Tom Arnold M.P.
D.F.J.Paterson.