TNAG-1330-FCO40-1757-Future-of-Hong-Kong-test-of-the-acceptability-of-the-Joint-D-1984 — Page 312

about the way in which the Assessment Office has discharged its

functions? Will the Monitoring Team be able to submit the kind of

reassuring and thorough report which HMG will hope to receive

without commenting on the way in which the consultation processes

have been carried out or have worked out? Will the Assessment Office itself be able to stand entirely apart from the consultation process if, for example, the response from, say, parts of the Hong

Kong Community show up some deficiencies in that process?

I realise that the processes of consultation have, in broad terms at

least, been settled and published drawing, I am sure, upon

previous experience of consultation in Hong Kong.

need to

→

-

But, at this

historic moment, there would seem to be a particularly important

to safeguard the Hong Kong Government: and HMG against any

possible later charge that the substance of the Agreement

its

meaning and implications for the Hong Kong people was not fully

and clearly presented and explained. To take paragraph 4 of the

document about "Arrangements for testing ...etc", (a), (b) and (c)

may be relatively straightforward; but how important will the

outcome of (d) be? (I found Chapter 15 of "Hong Kong 1984"

impressive reading). As we briefly discussed with Percy Cradock, it

is likely to be important for the Monitoring Team to establish some

understanding at the outset with the Commissioner about the criteria

for judging that his task has been "properly, accurately and impartially discharged" (as I would expect it

it to be). The reaction

OS the community at large in short, (d) may present the greatest difficulty.

―

-

and this can be

1

Perhaps I am making heavy weather. If there is

shown to those who don't know Hong Kong a good quantum' of

response to the consultation and it is clearly overwhelmingly

favourable to the Agreement, there will be little or no cause for

concern. But if things should turn out to be less straightforward,

it could prove unrealistic for the Monitors to make no comment on

the consultation processes in the context of reporting on the

assessment task.

Apologise for burdening you with this long letter; but it may save time to have written when we meet on 6th September. I am sending