CONFIDENTIAL
5
12.
(contd) !
should prefer this to be done either in response to enquiries from the Chinese or at a suitable working level. We have told N C N A. that we prefer to treat immigration as a local problem and at present we would like to keep in reserve any further formal representations, whether in Peking or London.
13
The only points which you should not discuss with the Chinese are those concerning the basis on which Hong Kong travel documents are given to Chinese immigrants (see Annex II). This is not because it is a particularly sensitive issue and Chinese officials would have no difficulty in finding out what our current practice is. However, we are considering changes, since it seems that the different treatment of Kwangtung residents is causing various problems here especially as Kwangtung residents can obtain Hong Kong travel documents immediately after arrival. This may make some governments in the region less willing to accept the Hong Kong Certificate of Identity (which is used for travel to places other than China or Macau).
An "acceptable level" of immigration?
14.
There are two other general background points worth making. Firstly, as long as there is no significant balancing outflow to China, any acceptable level of immigration from China must be influenced by the rate of emigration from Hong Kong. I do not have figures to hand, but my impression is that the illustrative figure of 50 a day, which has been mentioned to the Chinese in the past (e.g. by Sir John Addis to WANG Tung on 8 November 1973) and by David Wilson as an "ideal" average when talking recently to NC NA here, would roughly match the average rate of emigration in recent years. If it became more difficult for people to leave Hong Kong even 50 a day could be too many.
It is worth adding that we are under no illusion that the Chinese have ever agreed that 50 a day or any other figure is an acceptable level. (although it is true that from 1956 until 1967, 50 a day, was the "fixed-number quota" imposed at Lowu and tacitly accepted by the Chinese). From time to time there are press stories here which suggest that 50 a day is enshrined in a tacit agreement with China e.g. as part of the 1974 arrangements for returning illegal immigrants and with the corollary (fortunately not unusually spelt out) that China is breaking this "agreement". We and Immigration Department are careful whenever we are asked about this figure (which has fairly wide currency here) to emphasise that it has no special status: if I am asked to give an indication of an acceptable level of immigration I generally avoid a precise figure but point to 1976 (20,453 arrivals, daily average 56) as the sort of level to which we should like to return.
CONFIDENTIAL
-/6.
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.