TNAG-1239-FCO40-1552-Future-of-Hong-Kong-1983 — Page 112

SECRET

MKK040|1

Mr Clift, HKD

Mi

*

RE

i cc:

Reference

Miss Neville-Jones

Mr Elliot, FED

Chips hae rer so leterite (220W)M

to Me and this,

Curly jia M575. pier

(410

See (411)

1. I am struck by the problems we are having in producing evidence of Hong Kong opinion to refute statements by the Chinese side that the Hong Kong people support Chinese plans.

2.

We appear to have access to three sorts of evidence of the views of the Hong Kong people:

(a) the views of EXCO and other bodies;

(b)

the views of the press;

(c) the results of some opinion polls.

On (a) the Chinese would dismiss the views of these groups as being unrepresentative. On (b), the Chinese would argue that press comment is controlled by a capitalist-dominated sector and

therefore biased. (c) harder for them to dismiss although I understand that most of the polls are long in the tooth and their results vary quite widely.

3. Is there not a strong case for the Hong Kong Government commissioning Gallup or another reputable opinion research company to carry out a comprehensive poll of Hong Kong opinion and presenting the results at the September round of talks with the Chinese. I realise that the Chinese are sensitive to references to the opinions of the Hong Kong people being relevant. But:

(a) our line is that the outcome of the talks should be acceptable to Hong Kong. The Chinese have not questioned this.

(b) The Chinese, not. the UK, have raised this point first by alleging that they know the true feelings of the Hong Kong Chinese.

3. It could be argued that polls are not scientific or are unreliable. But this is no longer the case. Psephologists would argue that a comprehensive survey, made up of a series of carefully worded questions going behind simple statements of opinion to analyse the reasons why views are held, would provide an accurate assessment of opinion in Hong Kong to within a couple of percentage points.

CODE 18-77

SECRET

/4.