XN000022-1990-06-25 — Page 14

THAT COMPLETELY FAILS TO TAKE ACCOUNT OF THE FACT THAT IF YJU HAVEN'T GOT THIS AGREEMENT, YOU'VE GOT ABSOLUTELY NOTHING. AND I DON'T THINK, REALLY, IF PEOPLE LOOKED AT THAT, THAT IS WHAT THEY WOULD WANT.

OLIVER SCOTT: MR ROCHFORD, DOES THAT COVER YOUR POINT?

CALLER :

YES, I THINK SO. I WOULD ALSO ACTUALLY LIKE TO ASK WHETHER, IN OTHER WORDS, BRITAIN WOULD NOT SEEK EVEN TO RETAIN CONTROL OF THE AREA OF HONG KONG WHICH WAS CEDED TO BRITAIN BY CHINA IN, I THINK IT WAS, 1841. IN THOSE CIRCUMSTANCES?

-

SIR DAVID: 1842 WAS THE FIRST ONE. WELL, THAT WAS ONE OF THE THINGS THAT HAD TO BE LOOKED AT WHEN THE AGREEMENT ON THE FUTURE WAS WORKED OUT IN 1984, AND WITH THE VERY MAJOR PART OF HONG KONG BEING LEASED TERRITORY IT WAS VERY CLEAR AT THAT TIME IT MADE NO SENSE TO HAVE A SEPARATE ARRANGEMENT FOR THE PART WHICH WASN'T LEASED THAT'S HONG KONG ISLAND AND THE TIP OF THE KOWLOON PENINSULA WHERE I AM ACTUALLY SPLAKING FROM AT THE MOMENT. YOU COULDN'T RUN THOSE THINGS, THOSE PARTS OF HONG KONG, SEPARATELY FROM THE REST OF

OF THE TERRITORY. I MEAN, JUST TO TAKE ONE EXAMPLE, OUR AIRPORT IS IN THE NEW TERRITORIES - IN THE LEASED TERRITORY; NEARLY ALL OUR WATER COMES FROM THE LEASED PART, THE NEW TERRITORIES; ALL THE NEW TOWNS AND MOST OF THE INDUSTRY IS IN THE NEW TERRITORIES. SO YOU CAN'T REALLY SEPARATE ONE FROM THE OTHER. SO THE DECISION WAS MADE, IF THERE WAS GOING TO BE AN AGREEMENT ABOUT WHAT HAPPENED WHEN THE LEASED TERRITORY WENT BACK TO CHINA, THE ONLY SENSIBLE THING TO DO WAS TO MAKE AN AGREEMENT FOR THE WHOLE OF THE TERRITORY AND MAKE THOSE PROVISIONS THAT IN THE WHOLE OF THE TERRITORY, FOR 50 YEARS AFTER 1997, ALL THE KEY POINTS WOULD BE LAID DOWN, REGISTERED, GUARANTEED, THAT ALL THOSE THINGS WOULD GO ON LIKE THE LAW, THE ECONOMY, THE CURRENCY, ETC.

+

OLIVER SCOTT: WELL, FROM THOSE QUESTIONS FROM MR ROCHFORD, WE MOVE ON NOW TO STUART GRANT WHO IS CALLING FROM MALAWI, APPROACHING THE SAME ESSENTIAL ISSUE, I THINK, BUT FROM A RATHER DIFFERENT ANGLE. MR GRANT, YOUR QUESTION FOR SIR DAVID WILSON.

CALLER: YES, GOOD AFTERNOON, SIR DAVID.

SIR DAVID: GOOD AFTERNOON, MR GRANT.

CALLER: I UNDERSTAND ALL THE POINTS THAT YOU HAVE MADE, AND INDEED A VERY, VERY APT SUMMATION, MY ONLY POINT IS THAT WHY WASN'T A 'SINGAPORE-TYPE' SOLUTION CONSIDERED FOR HONG KONG? THERE YOU HAVE A SMALL 400 SQUARE KILOMETRES AND IT IS VERY DEPENDENT ON SUPPLIES FROM THE MAINLAND ACROSS THE MALAYAN STRAITS, AND THERE YOU HAVE A VERY LARGE CHINESE POPULATION WITH STRONG LINKS WITH THE MAINLAND. IN SUMMARY, ARE WE REALLY SAYING THAT THERE WAS NO OTHER ALTERNATIVE? AND WON'T YOU FEEL A PANG OF REGRET THAT THE HONG KONG CITIZENS WITH THEIR LONG ASSOCIATION WITH BRITAIN IN COMMERCIAL, JUDICIAL AND GOVERNMENTAL PROCESSES, ARE NOT GOING TO BE REPRESENTED BY AN INDEPENDENT HONG KONG WITH A MEMBER OF THE COMMONWEALTH BUT WITH SPECIAL RELATIONS WITH MAINLAND CHINA, RATHER LIKE THE SPECIAL RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN GREAT BRITAIN AND THE UNITED STATES?

SIR DAVID: THE SINGAPORE SOLUTION, YOU'RE THINKING OF AN INDEPENDENT STATE AND I THINK THAT SIMPLY WOULD HAVE BEEN AN IMPOSSIBILITY BECAUSE YOU HAVE GOT TO HAVE TWO PEOPLE TO MAKE THAT AGREEMENT. THERE HAS TO

3