CONFIDENTIAL機密
From Deputy Political Adviser
Ref...in...
Tel. No.
Date
WAD 345
RECEN
MEMO
To Secretary for Security (Attn: Mr. Isaac Chow Mr. Jim Morris
(Attn:
ONOV 1990
Your Ref.
in
dated
9
PAS (S) 3) PAS (S) 5)
17 August 1996
Miss Morden. Minoltague
PA
Do you have past dealings
with this
MyMajor
(5419
HONG KONG/JAPAN MULTIPLE VISITORS VISA AGREEMENT
(7)
Mr. Seki of the Japanese Consulate-General called on me yesterday to deliver the response he at last received from Tokyo to our latest comments on their proposal which were given in HK Telno. 1275 of 18 April 1990 to FCO.
2.
form. far.
(i)
I am afraid the Japanese are sticking to their past What Mr. Seki had to say does not get us forward very He made the following points :
Format
The Japanese considered that an exchange of notes such as we proposed would constitute an international agreement with binding force. This they apparently wish to avoid. They therefore simply wish to issue notes in parallel. previously gave us was the note they would issue. Kong issued would be up to us.
The text they What Hong
In this context, Mr. Seki was still unable to explain what the Japanese meant by "on a reciprocal basis" in their unilateral note. Did they want exact reciprocity : or did they mean simply they would do "X" if we did "y", whatever "y" happened to be? I suggested that one way to make it clear to us what they had in mind was to provide us with a suggested draft of the Hong Kong side's note as well as their own. I have suggested this at least once before; as on previous occasions Mr. Seki undertook to put this to Tokyo.
(ii) Validity
Mr. Seki said that para. 5 of the note they had most recently given us should satisfy our concern over a cut-off date. Their proposal is that the arrangement should continue initially until 1994, and that there should then be discussion between the two sides as to what was to happen thereafter and indeed after 1997. He said, however - and this is significant because this is the first time he has been instructed to say this quite so clearly - that at present, the Japanese did not intend to carry on the arrangement beyond 1997.
O.F. 73 C
CONFIDENTIAL #
- 2 -
I said this caused me considerable concern. I also
asked what their attitude was regarding the present arrangement whereby Hong Kong residents can obtain multiple entry visas for one year (after all, the new Agreement is only trying to extend the validity period to three years). Mr. Seki said his instructions gave no clear view on this point. I found this part of his message very ominious.
(iii) Side Letter
Seki explained that the intention behind the
restrictions was to exclude nominal companies and nominal employees. He said, however, that they would be able (perhaps after the arrangement is established) to reconsider and possibly expand the scope. But he said Tokyo wanted some more factual information. He undertook to provide a list of specific questions.
4.
Among the various points on which Seki did not have any response the most serious was 'three-year rule'. I explained yet again the odd effect this would have, potentially excluding businessmen who had taken up their job with a company less than three years before applying for a visa. Seki undertook once again to seek a view from Tokyo on this point.
5.
The saga drags on. Much more of this and we will be able to claim some sort of record. I suggest we make another major effort perhaps bringing in London and Tokyo when we receive their list of questions. What is beginning to concern me now is the way in which this prolonged series of exchanges is revealing pretty fundamental doubts in the official Japanese mind on the position here post 1997. It reminds me of their ponderously obstructive attitude towards a separated ASA. While it seems Japanese business is taking a long term and positive view of Hong Kong, it may be that parts of the Government harbour doubts or suspicions they do not care to tell us about directly.
c.c.
Fr. Bradhy
(S. E. Bradley)
Deputy Political Adviser
-
HKD, FCO. Ms. R. Marsden Chancery, Tokyo.
CONFIDENTIAL
FM ONG KONG
TO ROUTINE FCO
TELNO 1275
OF 1807002 APRIL 90
INFO ROUTINE TOKYO
CONFIDENTIAL
INFORMATION
HKD 345
RECEIVED
3 O NOV 1990
DESK EFICER
YOUR TELNO 674: HONG KONG/JAPAN MULTIPLE ENTRY VISASA
002529
1. WE SPOKE TO THE JAPANESE CONSULATE (SEKI) AGAIN TODAY AND PUT TO
HIM FORMALLY THE FOLLOWING POINTS.
2. WE WERE NOT PARTICULARLY CONCERNED ABOUT THE FORMAT OF THE NOTES WHICH WERE TO RECORD THE PROPOSED UNDERSTANDING. HOWEVER WE DID NO UNDERSTAND HOW THE JAPANESE PROPOSAL WAS GOING TO WORK IN PRACTICE. THE TEXT THEY HAD PROPOSED DEALT ONLY WITH VISITORS FROM HONG KONG TO JAPAN. BUT IT CONTAINED THE WORDS ''ON A RECIPROCAL BASIS''. DID THIS MEAN ALL THE CONDITIONS WERE TO APPLY TO JAPANESE VISITORS TO HONG KONG? WHAT SORT OF NOTE DID THEY EXPECT FROM US IN REPLY? WE
JRGED AGAIN THE ADVANTAGE OF THE FORMAT PREVIOUSLY PROPOSED BY US, WHILE INDICATING WE WERE NOT INFLEXIBLY WEDDED TO THE PRECISE
WORDING.
3. WE AGAIN EXPLAINED OUR CONCERN OVER HAVING A CUT-OFF DATE WRITTEN CLEARLY INTO THE AGREEMENT. WE EXPLAINED THAT, AS PROPOSED BY US, THE AGREEMENT COULD NOT CONTINUE BEYOND 1997 ANYWAY. FOR THIS TO BE POSSIBLE WE WOULD HAVE TO CONSULT THE CHINESE. IT WAS IN ORDER TO GET THE ARRANGEMENT IN PLACE QUICKLY AS POSSIBLE THAT WE WERE TAKING OUR PRESENT APPROACH. WE SAID WE HOPED THE ARRANGEMENTS COULD CONTINUE BEYOND 1997, BUT WISHED TO LEAVE NECESSARY DISCUSSION WITH THE CHINESE UNTIL THE REVIEW WE HAD PROPOSED IN
1994.
4. WE SAID WE WOULD BE WILLING TO INCLUDE IN OUR DRAFT EXCHANGE OF NOTES A TERMINATION AT NOTICE CLAUSE (WE OFFERED A SIMPLE TEXT). WE SUGGESTED THAT A COMBINATION OF THIS TERMINATION AT NOTICE CLAUSE, TOGETHER WITH A REVIEW IN 1994, SHOULD COVER THEIR CONCERNS.
WE AGAIN POINTED OUT THAT THE DEFINITION OF BUSINESS VISITOR IN · THE JAPANESE SIDE LETTER WAS EXTREMELY NARROW ANDS WOULD ELIMINATE THE MAJORITY OF HONG KONG BUSINESSMEN. OF 13,000 OR SO INCORPORATED BUSINESSES IN HONG KONG, ONLY ABOUT 330 HAD ASSESSABLE PROFITS OF - OVER HKDOLLARS 50 MILLION PER ANNUM. ONLY 300 WERE LISTED ON THE STOCK EXCHANGE. WE PROMISED FURTHER DETAILED MATERIAL, BUT SUGGESTED THAT THESE FACTS ALONE SUGGESTED THE LIKELIHOOD WAS THAT ONLY ABOUT 2 OR 3 PERCENT OF ALL HONG KONG COMPANIES WOULD BE COVERED UNDER THE JAPANESE DEFINITION.
6. WE DREW ATTENTION TO THE BIZARRE EFFECT THAT THE THREE YEARS' SERVICE QUALIFICATION COULD HAVE. IN GENERAL, PEOPLE CHANGED JOBS IN HONG KONG MUCH MORE FREQUENTLY THAN THEY DID IN JAPAN. BUT EVEN SOMEONE WHO HAD WORKED FOR SWIRES FOR TEN YEARS BEFORE MOVING TO
/JARDINES....
.: SforS(7)
1: PA(3) DPA, APA(G), APA(S), DofIMM(3),JLG(3), LO(IL) (3)
ILE NO. SCR 2/2331/46
8
,C
CONFIDENTIAL