The paper wrote: "So long as Hong Kong does not endanger China's interests and stability and, most important of all, is not used in any way as a base for attacks against the Chinese, China will definitely not make any changes in the status quo of Hong Kong.”
WAH KIU MAN PO (29.4.76) said that it was highly unlikely that the Chinese Govern- ment, which had been extremely cautious about the problems of Hong Kong and Macau, would be prepared to forecast what would happen in 20 years' time.
The paper said that recent events, in- cluding renewed discussions on through-train services and improved postal services, showed that the China-Hong Kong relationship would not only remain unchanged but would continue to improve.
SING TAO JIH PAO (30.4.76) said the future of Hong Kong was dependent on the world situation.
It said: “China will allow Hong Kong to maintain its status quo so long as it feels that it would not be appropriate to take back Hong Kong on defence, economic and other grounds.
"Present indications are that Hong Kong's position is likely to remain unchanged for a long time, possibly beyond 1997.”
The paper felt that Mr. Wolff could have misinterpreted what he was told by an unnamed Chinese official. "We should not attach too much importance to his statement," the paper added.
In a second editorial, SING TAO JIH PAO (2.5.76) doubted the reliability of the "take Hong Kong back" claim and believed that the Chinese officials to whom Mr. Wolff had spoken were not high-ranking since the New China News Agency did not mention the remark.
The paper specualted that rumours about Hong Kong's future would be clarified when the British Foreign Secretary, Mr. Anthony Crosland, visited China.
MING PAO (29.4.76) said that Mr. Wolff's claim had caused some public anxiety because of incorrect translations in some Chinese language newspapers.
“Some translations read: 'Chinese officials are once again attempting to regain partial control of Hong Kong'," the paper said.
"This has prompted the public to think that the extreme leftists in China have won power and are planning to repeat the 1967 disturbances," it added.
The paper also believed that Mr. Wolff might have misinterpreted the remarks of Chinese officials.
It noted that it had been the Chinese Government's basic policy not to recognise any unequal treaty.
"If the Chinese Government accepts the New Territories lease, it will have to admit that it will never have control over Hong Kong Island and South Kowloon because they were ceded to the British Government,” it went on.
In another editorial the following day, -MING PAO (30.4.76) reiterated that the Chinese Government did not attach any significance to the New Territories lease.
"Hong Kong is but a very small matter compared to the mammoth tasks facing the Chinese Government both inside and outside China, including the border dispute with the Soviet Union," the paper said.
The paper also disputed a prediction by the Director of the Hong Kong General Chamber of Commerce, Mr. Jimmy McGregor, that within a few years, China might well put forwardd proposals for maintaining the status quo of Hong Kong in some form at the expiry of the New Territories lease.
"If China has decided to keep Hong Kong's status quo and does not wish to shake the confidence of foreign investors and the people here, it will make known its intentions by menas of strong hints rather than committing itself publicly or by written undertakings." the paper said.
TIN TIN YAT PO devoted two editorials (29. and 30.4.76) to the issue.
In its first editorial, the paper said Mr. Wolff's claim had indicated that Hong Kong's present status quo would be maintained at least for the next 21 years.
The paper also pointed out the "subtle" difference between the words "gaining control over Hong Kong" and "taking back Hong Kong”.
"The Chinese Government may introduce greater control over Hong Kong instead of taking back Hong Kong when the lease expires," the paper said.
A
}
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.