TNAG-1324-FCO40-1736-Future-of-Hong-Kong-Parliamentary-debates-1984 — Page 138

GRS500 SECRET

SECRET

FM HONG KONG 2010452 MAR 84

TO IMMEDIATE FCO

TELEGRAM NUMBER 746 OF 20 MARCH

INFO IMMEDIATE PEKING

23

-NR

.MKKO40/31

USTRY TUAR 1734

14

8. Kunk

YOUR TELNOS 233 AND 234: FUTURE OF HONG KONG: FOREIGN AFFAIRS DEBATE.

1. I SHOWED THE DRAFT IN YOUR SECOND TEL UNDER REF TO EXCO AT A

PART II MEETING THIS MORNING, MAKING IT CLEAR THAT IT WAS NOT THE

FINAL VERSION. IN DOING SO I SAID THAT THE STATEMENT COULD BE

REGARDED AS THE FIRST STEP IN THE UNVEILING PROCESS WHICH WOULD

BE CARRIED FURTHER IN THE PUBLIC STATEMENT WHICH YOU PROPOSED TO MAKE DURING YOUR VISIT TO HONG KONG. SINCE THAT VISIT WOULD TAKE

PLACE WHILE PARLIAMENT WAS IN RECESS IT WAS IMPORTANT THAT

PARLIAMENT SHOULD BE GIVEN SOME INDICATION OF THE DIRECTION IN

WHICH WE WERE MOVING BEFOREHAND.

2. AS I HAD ANTICIPATED, THERE WAS NO DISPOSITION TO ARGUE THAT A

STATEMENT ON THE LINES PROPOSED WOULD PREEMPT WHAT YOU MIGHT SAY

IN HONG KONG. THERE WERE ONLY TWO SUBSTANTIVE COMMENTS ON THE TEXT:

(A) SIR S.Y. CHUNG SUGGESTED THAT THE SENTENCE IN PARA 4 WHICH

READS FOR THE FUTURE IT IS POSSIBLE TO VISUALISE OTHER WAYS

IN WHICH CONTINUITY CAN BE ASSURED'' MIGHT BE AMENDED TO BEGIN

''FOR THE FUTURE IT IS (NEXT WORD UNDERLINED) NECESSARY TO

VISUALISE OTHER WAYS...'' HE ARGUED THAT THIS WOULD MAKE THE

MEANING CLEARER TO THOSE WHO COULD NOT READ BETWEEN THE LINES.

I SAID THAT I DID NOT THINK THE PRESS WOULD BE SLOW TO SEE THE

SIGNIFICANCE OF YOUR INTENDED REMARKS.

(B) ANOTHER SENIOR UNOFFICIAL THOUGHT THAT THERE WAS AN IMPORTANT

OMISSION IN THAT THERE WAS NO MENTION IN THE DRAFT OF HMG'S

OBLIGATIONS TOWARDS THE THREE MILLION BDTC'S, AND INDEED TO

ALL THOSE NOW LIVING IN HONG KONG. I SAID THAT I WOULD PUT THIS

POINT TO LONDON BUT THE VIEW THERE MIGHT WELL BE THAT IT WOULD

BE MORE APPROPRIATELY COVERED IN YOUR SECOND STATEMENT IN HONG

KONG RATHER THAN IN THE ONE TO BE MADE ON 22 MARCH.

SECRET

/c.

see

40

27