TNAG-0903-FCO40-1113-Implications-for-Hong-Kong-of-changes-in-British-nationality-1979 — Page 84

RUST

CONFIDENTIAL

However, there was a strong dislike for these possibilities among the Unofficial Members. From their point of view it is very important that any new title - if there must be one - should emphasise the British character of Hong Kong residents. For this reason they wish to retain the present prefix "British Subject".

He has confirmed

5. We have consulted HM Ambassador in Peking. his previous view which was reflected in an FCO Memorandum you saw at an earlier stage: namely that any change in nomenclature would be likely to arouse Chinese suspicions as to our intentions, and that these suspicions would be only partly allayed by explanation that in practice the status of Hong Kong residents would be unaffected. He has therefore advised retention of the present nomenclature." If that is not possible, he considers that the title at (2) in paragraph 2 above would be marginally preferable to (3) and (4) because it represents the least change, and would not arouse fears that we were seeking to create a separate Hong Kong nationality and identity.

6. As I said on the telephone I think there is no doubt in the Governor's mind that the nomenclature must be changed if the Government's intention is to get away from the basis of unitary citizenship. However, I think that alternatives (2), (3) and (4) in paragraph 3 above could all be suitable as a description of Colonial 'belorgers' without destroying the central purposes of the new legislation. It also seems to me that, given that some change in nomenclature must inevitably be made to distinguish UK 'belongers' from the rest, and given that any change seems likely to arouse Chinese suspicions, we can conclude that:-

(a) the prospect of Chinese suspicions does not invalidate the requirement for a three-category system, because these suspicions will exist whatever changes are made: but

(b) so far as Colonial 'belongers' are concerned, we should aim

at making the minimum change in nomenclature.

7. Leonard Figg is away for a couple of days. I will show him this letter on return, and perhaps we should have another session with you and David Hilary when you return from Hong Kong and Australia.

CONFIDENTIAL

Yours

wer

Donald

سط

DF Murray