SECRET
seems one worth exploring again. The blurring of the constitutional distinction is a recent phenomenon dating
from the tenure of the last Governor who took the decision
to do so against the advice of Sir Denys Roberts. I suggest this is a point we should consider during our discussions with the Governor and that no revision of the Planning Paper is required. (I have drawn attention to the point in the draft Steering Brief.)
(b) Selling the Programme
As before, the Governor is unhappy at any implication that the policies advocated in the Paper have to be implemented
against the instincts of the highly conservative Hong Kong establishment. In the interests of getting an agreed Paper, we have left out the overt references to this, which we regard
as a fact of life and, perhaps even more important, a limitation
of our freedom of action which Ministers need to realise.
But I am not inclined to accept Sir Denys Roberts' redraft which could by extension be misconstrued as implying that other and more radical policies could be undertaken provided
they were properly presented in Hong Kong. I do not believe this to be the case, at least over the next five years. I suggest, too, that we should be wary of the reintroduction of the notion that the Hong Kong population is the true source of the conservative atmosphere of the Colony: it will be remembered the drafters of the Paper had to abandon this as improbable. Finally, we should not accept the suggestion that the information effort should be conducted exclusively by
the senior British Trade Commissioner. We have always regarded the Hong Kong Information Services as being primarily responsible for this, which is very much in the Colony's own interests; and I understood this to have been accepted
by Hong Kong.
In short, we should not amend the Paper to meet the Governor on this but should be prepared to discuss the paragraph with him when he is here.
2
SECRET
Page 120Flag
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.