TNAG-2059-FCO40-2937-Hong-Kong-Overseas-Service-Pensioners--Association-(OSPA)-1990 — Page 54

Z $ APR 1990

OVERSEAS SERVICE PENSIONERS' ASSOCIATION

PRESIDENT:

The Lord Grey of Naunton, GCMG GCVO OBE

SECRETARY :

Mr. C. D. Stenton

63 CHURCH ROAD

HOVE SUSSEX

BN3 2BD

Telephone: Brighton (0273) 721630

Your Ref:

Our Ref:

FNMP/RJH/F3HK

Тор соју

is will Mr Stone

The Hon. Francis Maude, M.P., Minister of State,

Foreign & Commonwealth Office, London,

SW1A 2AH.

25th April, 1990

Miss Marsden, HIP

V. Ewan

Grateful for a draft reply. BXPS/Mr Maude

26/4

Dear Minister,

I thank you for your letter of 2nd April in reply to my letter of 26th January regarding the position of HMOCS officers in Hong Kong. Unfortunately, because your letter was addressed to Brighton instead of Hove and mailed second class, it only arrived in the office on 6th April and so crossed in the post with my letter of 4th April to Mr. McLaren.

I am aware of the terms of the Joint Declaration, as now enshrined in the Basic Law, as rehearsed in the paragraphs on the first page of your letter. But their re-statement does not answer the points which I made in my letter of 26th January.

I agree that "the situation in Hong Kong is therefore not identical to that of those former British territories which moved towards independence", but I do not accept the suggestion, implied in your letter, that the position of public servants under the Joint Declaration is safer than it was in other former colonies under the Public Officers' Agreements negotiated with the newly independent governments. The fundamental difference is that sovereignty is being transferred to another country and not to the people of Hong Kong, and that while the Basic Law provides for a large measure of autonomy for the future Hong Kong Special Administrative Regional Government, in the final analysis power over Hong Kong will be exercised by the Government of the People's Republic of China. While the Joint Declaration may well be an internationally binding agreement, it is not unknown for such agreements to be broken and there will be very little effective sanction which Britain, as the aggrieved party, could invoke to ensure compliance. There is therefore all the more reason why the position of HMOCS officers, for whom the Secretary of State has special responsibilities, should be fully assured before the derogation of his protection.

You seem to denigrate the significance of the restriction of the most senior posts being reserved for Chinese citizens who (as the final version of the Basic Law states) have no right of abode in foreign countries. The number of posts is not insig- nificant, but the real issue is that the exclusion of non-Chinese