I
CONFIDENTIAL
-
4
In another commentary the paper refuted an editorial in the Kung Sheung Daily News which said all treaties should be adhered to whether they were signed under duress or not. It challenged whether treaties signed between the Kuomintang and the Japanese Army in China during World War II were considered valid. If so a large part of northern China would still belong to Japan.
Later in the week, the New Evening Post criticised the Government for the blunder it had made in amending the immigration law. The authorities should take note that Chinese residents would not be deprived of their legitimate right to stay in HK by the amendment to plug loopholes in the law. Chinese people who were born here and chose to remain as Chinese should not be denied residence in HK.
Right-wing press hits back: This continuing propaganda in the left-wing press was
detected by right-wing papers which hit back by challenging China's stance on the issue.
On 2 February, Ming Pao criticised China for using double standards in handling its border dispute with the Soviet Union and the HK issue. As reflected in two Chinese official magazines (New Era and World Knowledge), China had never insisted on recovering the 1.5 million Sq. KM. of territory ceded to Russia under unequal treaties. Instead, it favoured solving the problem through peaceful negotiations based on these treaties. But China's stance towards the HK issue was that the three unequal treaties were invalid and sovereignty must be regained. It queried why China emphasised nationalism on the HK issue while such tactics had never been used in its border dispute with, Russia. The paper noted that the way the Chinese leadership handled State affairs was open to criticism.
On the same day, Kung Sheung Daily News said editorially that China was going too far in using its news media to criticise Britain's "aggression". and “stubbornness". The paper observed that the HK Government had been very friendly to China. It had not criticised Beijing or challenged statements issued by the Chinese authorities. But China had been tightening the screw against Britain and HK. Its propaganda strategy was a kind of psychological warfare designed to make Britain and HK accept Beijing's terms. This indicated that the more silent and submissive Britain and HK remained, the more critical and aggressive China would be. The paper said silence only meant weakness and asked both the British and HK Governments to review whether it would be viable to keep the talks confidential. It also noted that the discreet attitude of Sir Edward Youde on his return from London contrasted sharply with the early optimism that the 1997 issue would be resolved through the Governor's participation in the talks as disclosed in London. It viewed Sir Edward's attitude as an indication that the talks might hit snags again.
Over the weekend, an Oriental Daily News columnist said cynically HK residents would never be convinced by the left-wing papers which kept on relating the 1997 issue to the Opium War and nationalism. If Beijing considered the three treaties unequal, why shouldn't it send the PLA to recover HK, he asked? People, who often accused others as traitors, would only be consider nuts. Of all the hundreds of letters received from readers, none advocated immediate recovery of HK; while the recovery of sovereignty over HK was a matter of course, the question to be settled was how to remove the fears and bewilderment of the majority.
CONFIDENTIAL
Page 45Page 46
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.