10.
The conditions and principles in the White Papers rovide for compensation to be paid by the local government and the right to retire with immediate entitlement to earned pension is only meaningful if the local government will act accordingly and pay the pension. As I understand it the Governor of Hong Kong is unwilling to contemplate either step though we are still awaiting a reply to a telegramme on the latter point.
The Secretary of State could give instructions to the Governor under the Letters Patent, but, apart from the political aspects of such a course, that of itself would be of little use so far as the period before 1997 is concerned if legislation were required and the majority of the Legislature were of the same mind as the Governor. After 1997, a totally new government will be in power (this is very significant difference from past cases where the independence government was usually composed of the same people as the its immediate predecesor which was party to compensation and retiring arrangements) and we only deal now with the central Chinese authorities who can play the game both ways; either this is a matter which the central Chinese authorities claim an interest as sovereign or as the "only true representative" of Hong Kong people, or it is a matter which falls within the area of autonomy of the SAR and the central authorities must not take this kind of decision for them!
Arrangements involving payment by Hong Kong of instalments of compensation or pensions after 1997 require the prior agreement of the Chinese authorities and, if they require the authority of a law, it will have to be a Hong Kong law not an Order in Council. In short, to attempt to give effect to the
the precise terms of the White Papers would require the co-operation of the Chinese authorities (as indeed do certain technical aspects of the present proposals relating to the payment of pensions). To date we have not started to consult them on these issues or on the question of a quarantee of the sterling value of pensions. Can we justify not pursuing the possibility of the Hong Kong Government or its successors giving effect to these conditions and principles without raising the matter with the Chinese?
}
11.
Two subsidiary questions follow. If we do not pursue the issues with the Hong Kong Government and the Chinese, are we justified in not making good the defect ourselves and ourselves making
making the same kind of provision as we have insisted is made by much poorer dependent territory governments in
in the past (and in this regard it is to be noted that in the earlier cases following the 1961 White Paper, we were prepared to pay half the compensation bill and we have now taken over much of
of the pensions bills). Secondly, if we do pursue these issues further with the Hong Kong Government and the Chinese and get a firm 'no', are we justified in not making good the deficiency ouselves.
In both cases the question comes down to whether the members of HMOCS should be disadvantaged by reason of the failure of the local government and our inability in practice to require the Hong Kong Government and its sucessor shoulder obligations which we believed in 1954 and 1961 were due to members of HMOCS.
12.
We have, in effect, already answered the substantive
to
/in
6