RESTRICTED
7
future of HK. With regard to the takeover story, the Post said many observers doubted the authenticity of the report, believing that China would certainly not be prepared to take HK at this time. CU lecturer, Dr. Joseph Cheng, said the reports were "groundless" and he did not think Taiwan had a part to play in the matter. Dr. Edward Chen of HKU said it was possible China planned to take over HK before the lease expiry date, but it was impossible for it to take over HK this year. The Post also reported that the left-wing New Evening Post had accused the three papers (without naming them) of "rumour-mongering”.
The paper's editorial on Monday (14 March) mentioned "gratuitous speculation and comments" from Taiwan and said it objected to any attempt to interfere in HK's relations and discussions with China. The paper equally deplored speculation of the kind that attempted to upset and disturb our people and our economy. If rumours began to circulate it was necessary to track down the source so that their credibility could be assessed. "The one published in a pro-Taiwan newspaper on Friday should not cause anyone to lose sleep," the Post commented. During the next few months, however, it was likely that more and more people would be speaking on this issue and it was right that all sectors of our community should be heard. It was up to the Government to collect this opinion and, when the time came for talks, to evaluate it as carefully as possible in an effort to obtain a cross-section of local opinion. Vociferous minorities should not attempt to impose their will or their outlook on the majority.
Ta Kung Pao Weekly Supplement: An editorial in the Ta Kung Pao Weekly Supplement for 10 - 16 March referred to a previous item about "Article 30" of the new Constitution which it said was unfortunately still being misread. (The Article being referred to was in fact 31). This Article gave a legal basis to the nine-point proposal for the peaceful reunification with Taiwan, one of which said Taiwan's current socio-economic system would remain unchanged. "It is absurd," the Supplement stated, "even to imagine that laws drawn up on the Chinese mainland in accordance with socialist principles could be imposed on a socio-economic system which is capitalistic in nature and sanctifies the private ownership of means of production, including land.
"It has become an open secret that this Article also applies to HK after the recovery of sovereignty by China. In this case statements made in Beijing are even more specific. The social as well as the economic system will not change, and the laws will remain basically unaltered. There is obviously no question of imposing upon HK the whole legal system and the codified laws as those on the mainland.”
The Supplement also carried the speeches of four of the participants in the Ta Kung Pao forum on the future of HK held on 28 February; the other speeches will
be carried in next week's issue.
Bank of China 'goofed': The leader in the Standard of 9 March said that the
China Bank had 'goofed' in telling small industrialists that loan repayments would carry no maximum period, which was interpreted to mean that maturities could be 40 or even 50 years. But it turned out that this was not what the BOC had in mind and it had issued a clarifying statement, not to the major dailies but through a left-wing paper. The Standard said a 40 - 50 year loan scheme would have been a confidence booster but, alas, it was wishful thinking.
RESTRICTED
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.