Referring to Mr. Luce's remark that "we should retain mutual trust and mutual confidence between the British Government and the people of Hong Kong." Sing Pao (30.9.83) said local residents of course were willing to do so because the British Government pledged to respect their wishes. Noting that Hong Kong people could always choose with which side they should retain mutual trust and confidence, the paper called on both nations not to play the "public opinion card" so that a settlement acceptable to residents could be found at an early date.
In a similar vein, the right-wing Kung Sheung Daily News (28.9.83) urged Britain and China not to use the territory as a venue for a “cold war" on the 1997 issue in order to avoid rocking Hong Kong's stability.
The leading left-wing Wen Wei Po (29.9.83) and Ta Kung Pao (29.9.83) refuted Mr. Luce's suggestion that China had breached the principle of confidentiality of the talks. Together with Tin Tin Daily News (30.9.83), Wen Wei Po argued that it was Britain, not China, who had made too many comments on the Hong Kong question. The paper cited the examples of two councillors (N.B. The paper was apparently referring to Urbco Chairman Mr. Hilton Cheong-leen and Senior Exco Member Sir Sze-yuen Chung) who had, respectively. suggested a 30-year transition period after 1997 and who had stated that Britain should continue to rule Hong Kong after that year.
Ta Kung Pao observed that Mr. Luce's visit was just another "public opinion card" played by Britain. Mr. Luce had seemingly met a wide spectrum of community bodies here. but they were all Government-groomed bodies and one wondered whether Mr. Luce had really obtained representative public views, the paper said.
Holding a different view, the Express (24.9.83) and Ming Pao Evening News (29.9.83) believed Mr. Luce's visit here to collect public opinion on 1997 would enable Britain to devise a policy towards the territory in the interests of residents.
The English-language Star (29.9.83), while agreeing that talks of this nature could not be discussed in public, felt that the local Government could make other efforts to show its people that their interests were being protected. For instance, it could embark on more projects in various fields.
On Mr. Luce's criticism of the "magaphone diplomacy," Ming Pao (30.9.83) observed that the question of sovereignty and treaties would inevitably be a subject of public discussion outside the negotiating chamber. Therefore, it was difficult to define what should be embodied in the principle of confidentiality. The only principle was that both sides should refrain from making any comments which might reduce the chances for the talks to succeed, the paper said.
Blaming the "magaphone diplomacy" on both Britain and China, the Financial Daily (4.10.83) said the open statements made by the two sides ran counter to their stated goal of maintaining the territory's prosperity and stability. This made people become sceptical about their sincerity in the talks.
In a similar vein, the South China Morning Post (29.9.83) said, "Basically, we are looking for an agreement achieved in harmony, and not acrimony, for this is for the long- term good and stability of Hong Kong."
The Centre Daily News and the left-wing Tin Fung Yat Po noted that Mr. Luce had mistakenly referred to Hong Kong as “a country" Tin Fung said this error called back to memory Mrs. Thatcher's recent statement that "Hong Kong would have been independent years ago."
-
END
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.