CR 50/3371/67
CONFIDENTIAL
Euth
883
{ RECEIVED IN?
ARCHIVES No.31
160
(159
12 SEP 1968 FD113
29th August, 1968.
You wrote to me on 17 August about the ban on fireworks in Hong Kong. Just after you wrote, the Colonial Secretary answered a question in the Legislative Council on this subject. I enclose the text of his reply. This was in fact a carefully prepared announce- ment designed to give the Communists early notice before they became too fully committed to a firework display on 1 October.
As you say, the ban, which was originally imposed by a decision of Executive Council on 6 September, 1967, was made during the emergency and in the light of the bombing campaign then developing, but since then the ban has been maintained for other reasons. For example, the Executive Council decided on 10 January this year to continue the ban over the Chinese New Year period. The main consider- ation was that damage to life, limb and property could be eliminated by the continuation of the ban. So far as we can judge, there is no strong feeling in Hong Kong against the ban. Opinions are divided, but on the whole the Government's decision to maintain the ban seems to be widely accepted.
As the ban applies equally to all persons and organisations in Hong Kong, I think it is not regarded as being directed mainly at the Communists. You will see that the Colonial Secretary's reply was drafted to avoid any implication of that kind. It follows that the removal of the ban would be regarded by the Communists as a fairly minor concession. It hardly seems worth considering if there are other good grounds for maintaining the ban, as we think there are. I will not repeat the arguments elaborated elsewhere about the merits of making concessions in Hong Kong since you know them already.
It is possible for any person or organisation to apply for permission to let off fireworks, but in the last year these requests have invariably been refused. include requests from a hospital, one of the Television They stations, the Federation of Hong Kong Industries and even the Fire Services Department.
/Contd....
P. Cradock, Esq., CMG
Office of the Charge d'Affaires,
PEKING.
ра
24.968.
Mr Gudoch in prahaps being rather too action im suggesting lifting of the forework bown.
CONFIDENTIAL
M
171⁄2
15- Saf.
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.