(iv) Paragraph 25, (last sentence): the last clause "and of benefit to the UK" causes us problems. This would mean that service of benefit to the UK was a necessary precondition for a successful application. It is more restrictive than the phrase in paragraph 24, (where service "could in some circumstances by recognised as benefitting the UK itself"). The Governor has previously said that the form of words in paragraph 25 would be very badly received and widely misunderstood in Hong Kong. It would be far better to end the sentence after the semi-colon.
(v) Paragraph 28: the last sentence strikes us as unnecessary. It might even strike people in Hong Kong as offensive. It would best be deleted.
(vi) Paragraph 30: the phrase "and this has been the position for more than 20 years" is unnecessary and ambiguous. Presumably this is intended to be a reference to the immigration and nationality position of Hong Kong people. It does not, however, fit in this context. The phrase should be deleted.
2.
Two other comments for what they are worth:
(i)
Paragraph 22: is it really the case that your records do not enable you to single out grants of citizenship to Hong Kong BDTCs? I imagine that the Committee will find that hard to swallow.
(ii) Paragraph 30: our Secretary of State felt that the
concluding paragraph was unsatisfactory in over-condensing some rather difficult ideas.
Yours sincerely,
llus
C T Wood
Hong Kong Department
Page 30Page 31
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.