TNAG-0123-FCO40-159-Future-of-Hong-Kong-1971 — Page 87

1

My barter

WHITEHALL $422

Dear John,

TOP SECRET

spare

Copy 4 of 4 copies

29

CABINET OFFICE

LONDON S.W.1

19 February, 1969

Hongkong OPDO(DR)(69) 1

I am grateful to John Moreton for the consideration given in his letter

I am

(24) 1(22) HKK 4/1 of 5th February to the comments which I sent you in my letter of 26th January. By and large I am content with John Moreton's proposed amendments, although I think there is probably still some difference of opinion between us about the way in which our social policies in Hongkong, broadly defined, may affect our tenure there and the conditions of any handover to China. happy to accept his argument that the present paper is not the place to thrash out this question and I therefore accept the proposed redrafts for paragraphs 1 and 50 put forward in John Moreton's letter. I would, however, like to see minor amendments to both these redrafts designed to make it clarer that the question of social policy in Hongkong is to be considered separately between the authorities there and in Whitehall and to avoid any possible prejudice to the outcome of that consideration.

1.e. tha wild t

The amendments I suggest are these:

Redraft of paragraph 1

(i) Line 5. After "policy", insert "towards our tenure of

Hongkong.

#1

(ii) At the end of the paragraph (after "in power"). Add "We

have also excluded detailed consideration of future Hongkong domestic policies. As explained in paragraph 50, these policies, insofar as they are relevant to the problem of the Colony's future, will be the subject of a separate study."

Redraft of paragraph 50

Amend the first sentence to read: "If we administer the Colony in a manner which accords fully with our own concepts of social justice we will widen the gap between Hongkong and China and thus may make the transition to Chinese rule more difficult for the inhabitants of Hongkong."

I sympathise with the dilemma which John Moreton, sees and I will not discuss in detail here the arguments in favour of not holding back social policies since I agree with him that this is what the future study is about. I would, however, just add for the sake of clarification that the comments enclosed with my earlier letter were intended to apply amongst other things to the question of educational policy and to this extent do not seem to be covered by the remarks in John Moreton's letter. This specific problem lies not so much in raising living standards as in countering the considerable effort which the Hongkong communists are currently putting into the educational field, and preventing them from building up through their schools a substantial following who might greatly increase our difficulties In other words the object of much of my earlier comment was to suggest that there are steps we can take which may help to avert the dangers described in paragraphs 56 and 57 of the paper.

mesuit Ch me. both in the nearer future and as withdrawal became imminent.

J.C.W. Bushell, Esq.

Copy to Mr. Moreton

RECEIVED IN ARCHIVES No.31

24 1969

John

(J.A. THOMSON)

!