$1
TOP SECRET
HONG KONG : DRAFT PLANNING PAPER
1.
There has been very little time to study this important Paper in the depth which it deserves and the following represent only my preliminary views.
2. The balance of the Paper is, I think, broadly right, as are the conclusions; but there are a number of omissions, and throughout the Paper there are, I think, some erroneous judgements deriving in part from the failure to take an objective look at the history of Hong Kong since 1947; an undue respect for what the Governor has achieved since 1971 and some very doubtful assumptions about the financial state and economy of Hong Kong.
3. Among the more important omissions is any reference to our contingency obligation towards British passport holders. A good case could be made out for seizing this nettle at a very early stage and removing our 'obligation' by Act of Parliament. Public opinion in this country knows nothing of this contingency obligation but were it to become widely known we could, I think, expect a very serious public reaction. I think that politicians of all parties accept that we cannot again endure a Uganda situation. Whatever we think ought to be done should, in any case, be included in the Planning Paper.
4. For convenience, I will make my remaining comments in relation to the paragraphs of the Paper.
Para. 2(c)
The expression "any further erosion of the link between them" seems somewhat vague and I am not sure what is intended. Might it not be better to speak of "preserving the links" between Hong Kong and HMG?
Para. 4
Surely we are not so hamstrung as to suggest that the actions of the Hong Kong Government can only be affected by us "indirectly and imperfectly"? We can if we wish use our constitutional powers and legislate by an Act of the UK Parliament or the Governor could be given a direction. I think we need to spell out the difference between the constitutional and legal position of a Crown Colony and the limitations of practical politics upon our influence with that Colony.
Later, Hong Kong is referred to as "a valuable source of invisible earnings". So far as I know, there are no reliable statistics which support this. We run a considerable deficit in trade with Hong Kong and I would certainly doubt whether any normal year's remittances to London amount to very much. I think this statement should be put a good deal more tentatively.
1
Para. 5
POP SECRET
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.