80.
9th August, 1965
78
I regret the delay in replying to your letter of 2nd July enclosing one from the Labour Party of Hong Kong to ar. Bottomley, This is a difficult matter on which to advise and we have given much thought to it.
e have, of course, no officia! record of what r. Rottomley said in Hong Kong but the marked passages in the attached copy of a press record of his final press conference would seem to suggest that the long Kong Labour Party's letter has misrepresented his statements on the subject of constituti nal development. Our libraries are
nable to produce a copy of the sia magazine to which their letter refers.
}
The Labour Party of Hong Kong is a sma! if vocal, body of probably not more than 2 members in all. it has no influence to speak of on opinion in the Colony where there is still no general demand for constitutional changes. The signatories of this letter are almost all professional organisers of associations and parties, In their permutations and combinations they are to be found writing letters on behalf of a number of other liong Kong organisations, c.2. United Nations' Association, the Democratic Self-Governmett Party, the Committee for Japanese Reparations. Mr. Hopkin-Jenkins and ...r. Kennedy-kipton are expatriates; the former is a teacher; the latter an ex-Civil servant, dismissed after the or for collaboration with the Japanese during latement in ling Kong. They represent few but themselves,
The letter received by Mr. Bottomley is in an abusive and hectoring style characteristic of its authors and we are inclined to think that it is intended to provoke
Page 83
/Mr. Bbtempef 344
C.C.. ADAMS 10:4
1
34
Page 84 officy into a reply. We do not feel lage Schefs244.
compelling "doctrinal" arguments to urge why
an.
r. Bottomley should not answer their insinuations (e.g. that he would be moving in a matter outside his responsibilities as secretary of state for Commonwealth Relations), although in general it would of course be
inappropriate for the ecretary of State for Commonwealth
elations to engage in direct correspondence with a Colonial political party on constit:tional issues. This is i the nature of a personal confrontation.
But if r. Bottomley docs reply, we foresee certain Consequences that could be unfortunate and of which: he should be aware. it is unlikely that his correspondents will let the matter drop with his reply; our Hong Kong corres, undents (and these persuas in particular) have a habit of never loosenias tacir teeth nce they become engaged in to int. it is almost certain that they will cause the reply to be published an circumstances which will attract anføy nu alle press coment and which they themselves will have arranged to ctim:late. An either case we would have to advise that T. Sottomley should allow the reply të stënd for the record and that any further develop ents should be ignored.
in balance therefore we feel that we should advise that he letter be ignoreu. Det if dr. Bottomley feels his personal position req ires that he should make sac answer we enclose a draft leutan hosed on the transcript of his Press confere co that he may wish to consider.
J return the Labour Party's letter and enclosures and shell be
be grateful if we could have two roping of r. Bottomley's reply in the course.
Sgd
(J.). Mullarky)