CONFIDENTIAL
XCC(93)67
CHINA ANGLE
13
With the exception of persons who had previously been included in the BN(O) passports of their parents and persons born in the first half of 1997, BN(O) passports cannot be issued after 30 June 1997. While the United Kingdom Memorandum is formally distinguishable from the Joint Declaration, there are clear obligations on both sides to abide by the terms of the respective Memoranda. The two Memoranda form an integral part of the whole agreement which was negotiated with the Chinese Government and subsequently enshrined in the Hong Kong Act 1985. The United Kingdom Memorandum provides specifically that British passports replacing BDTC passports [i.e. BN(O) passports] must be issued before 1 July 1997. We would be accused of breaching the agreement if we allow post-1997 issue of BN(O) passports to ex-BDTCs. To attempt now to put an interpretation on the Memorandum which differs from the interpretation originally intended when the British and Chinese sides reached agreement on the Memorandum would, without any doubt, illicit an extremely negative reaction from the Chinese side.
14
We informed the Chinese side in February via the Joint Liaison Group routine meeting that we would increase publicity for the BN(0) passport and that a phased programme for registration of BN(O)s and issuing them with passports might be needed. The Chinese side responded on 1 April that the Hong Kong Government should take the necessary steps to avoid a heavy concentration of applications at any particular time, that they had no objection to a phased programme, but sufficient time should be left before 30 June 1997 to resolve any problems resulting from failure to apply for BN(O) passports under the programme. Clearly the Chinese side still insist on completion of the replacement process before 1 July 1997. They will object to any attempt to extend the process beyond 30 June 1997. We see no prospect of them agreeing to a proposal along this line.
PUBLIC REACTION
15
There have been few expressions of interest from the public, probably because the issue is quite confusing to many people. Much of the interest in the matter has been in the Nationality Sub-Committee and in the media. We expect public reaction to remain low-key, unless Legislative Council Members continue to criticize the proposals, or the Chinese side makes negative public comments.
Executive Council
८