TNAG-1246-FCO40-1560-Press-reports-on-the-future-of-Hong-Kong-1983 — Page 86

CONFIDENTIAL

6

-

per cent of the territory would not make a viable prospect for the future. He hoped it would be possible for an interim statement of progress on the talks to be made in Parliament towards the end of this year.

Extensive media coverage was given to Mr. Wrigglesworth's remarks. Major independent papers highlighted his assertions that the self-rule proposal would not work and that a statement on the progress of the talks was expected before the end of this year. The Express and the pro-Taiwan Kung Sheung Daily News and HK Times played up that only a continuing British administration would maintain the status quo. Back-page coverage was accorded by Wen Wei Po and Ta Kung Pao. Both said that he had talked through his hat about continuing British presence here. Ta Kung Pao said editorially that his trip was entirely aimed at peddling the same old idea that only the British could administer HK. It also criticised his assertion that Britain would lose 92 per cent of its sovereignty over HK by 1997 and said all the treaties governing HK were unequal and had never been recognised by China. The restoration of sovereignty was the sacred mission of the Chinese Government and people. It would be absurd for a country to hand back the administration of a place to a nation from which it had regained sovereignty. It reminded Mr. Wrigglesworth that the era of imperialists gallivanting as protectors was over. In a short commentary, Wen Wei Po criticised him for brushing aside the self-rule proposition lightly on the grounds that conditions did not permit it to work. It hoped that it was Mr. Wrigglesworth's personal view and not that of the British Government.

an editorial on improved Sino-British economic co-operation, the New Evening Post described Mr. Wrigglesworth's remarks as nonsense and said he was totally ignorant of the HK question. The paper said the self-rule option served China's national and economic interests as well as the need for the country's modernisation.

In

Independent papers hit back at the left-wing press. The HK Daily News said they sounded like the gang of four. An agreement on a 30-year transitional period would instantly revive the property market and the commerce and industry sectors in HK. It would also benefit China's modernisation and boost investment in SEZs. The paper disagreed that it would be a national disgrace to trust the administration of HK to Britain on reversion of sovereignty. The Express said Mr. Wrigglesworth seemed to suggest that Britain would hand back sovereignty to China in return for administrative control over HK. Such an idea was the best possible way to resolve the HK issue. HK's freedom and prosperity could only be guaranteed by a British-style administration. The Financial Daily said, as a result of China's open policy in recent years, people gradually forgot their bad memories of China. But we must face reality that, if a date was fixed for the reversion of sovereignty, foreign investors and the majority of residents in HK still lacked faith in continuing prosperity. It would be subjective to say that conditions would be ripe in 1997 to restore sovereignty over HK. In another editorial the HK Daily News said, should Mr. Wrigglesworth's statement represent the British stance, and the assertions by Mr. Liao Chengzhi the Chinese position, it showed that there was a long way to go before a compromise could be reached. If there was an impasse in the Sino-British talks, opinion in HK would have the decisive effect.

CONFIDENTIAL