TNAG-1005-FCO40-1254-Capital-punishment-in-Hong-Kong-1981 — Page 64

1

F

with F

CONFIDENTIAL

-2-

5. In January 1980 the department submitted to Ministers on

whether they wished to maintain the policy of not intervening in

capital cases in the Dependent Territories.

The differing position

to the submission,

in Hong Kong was explained in the attachment

though the submission's recommendation itself did not specifically

bring it out. FCO Ministers decided to let sleeping dogs lie.

The position in each territory has thus remained as before.

6. The different treatment of Hong Kong has never been kept a

secret; it could always be deduced from public statements. But the

question has now received publicity with the 'South China Morning

Post' quotation of Mr Ridley's letter to Mr Kenneth Marks MP.

A Note prepared for EXCO stated that the 'South China Morning Post'

article had not given rise to very much media or public interest

in Hong Kong and proposed that there was no need to repeat the

statement of 6 November 1975 in LEGCO as had earlier been suggested

by EXCO.

7. We have received only two letters (to the Prime Minister),

both from the same Hong Kong District Committee, favouring re-intro-

duction of the death penalty.

8. The Points to Make underline the difficulty of sustaining

different treatment of Hong Kong but recognise the practical and

political difficulties in any change now. It would be helpful

to explore:

a) whether the Governor considers that EXCO would be prepared

to continue the current practice without a reiteration by

Ministers of the 1975 statement;

CONFIDENTIAL

/(b)