TNAG-2079-FCO40-2959-Hong-Kong-press-coverage-and-reports-1990 — Page 379

UNCLASSIFIED

164423 MDLIAN 7941

UNCLASSIFIED

FM HONG KONG

TO PRIORITY FCO TELNO 39

HKB 301/1

RECEIVED IN REGISTRY

23 JAN1990

DESK OFFICER

RA

OF 04020OZ JANUARY INDEX

The COPY

DIST?

REGISTRY

Action Taken

INFO ROUTINE HONG KONG GOVERNMENT OFFICE LONDON, PEKING

INFO ROUTINE UKRER JLG HONG KONG HKGO WASHINGTON, HKGO NEW YORK INFO ROUTINE HKGO SAN FRANCISCO, HKGO BRUSSELS, HKGO GENEVA INFO ROUTINE UKMIS GENEVA

HONG KONG AGREEMENT: PRESS COVERAGE: WEEKLY ROUNDUP (20.12.89

SUMMARY

-

3.1.90)

1. THE NEW NATIONALITY PACKAGE AND CHINESE OPPOSITION TO IT WAS ACCORDED PROMINENT COVERAGE. POLITICAL REFORM IN HONG KONG BEFORE 1997 AND THE BILL OF RIGHTS WAS ALSO GIVEN A GOOD RUN.

NATIONALITY PACKAGE

2. THE ANNOUNCEMENT BY THE FOREIGN SECRETARY IN THE HOUSE OF COMMONS OF A NATIONALITY PACKAGE FOR 50,000 HONG KONG FAMILIES WAS GIVEN WIDE COVERAGE IN THE MEDIA. OMELCO MEMBERS SAID THAT THEY WOULD CONTINUE TO FIGHT FOR MORE HONG KONG PEOPLE TO BE INCLUDED IN THE SCHEME. NINE PROFESSIONAL GROUPS, INCLUDING ACCOUNTANTS AND DOCTORS, WELCOMED THE SCHEME. BUT MOST COMMUNITY GROUPS SAID THAT THE NUMBER OF PASSPORTS OFFERED WAS TOO SMALL AND THAT THE SCHEME WAS TOO 'ELITIST'.

3. EDITORIALLY, MOST INDEPENDENT PAPERS SAID THAT THE NUMBER OF PASSPORTS OFFERED BY THE SCHEME WAS TOO SMALL AND WOULD DIVIDE THE COMMUNITY. HOWEVER, THEY BELIEVED THAT IT WOULD BE BETTER THAN NOTHING. THEY HOPED THAT THE SCHEME WOULD LEAD OTHER COUNTRIES TO FOLLOW SUIT SO THAT A WIDER 'SAFETY NET' COULD BE PROVIDED TO HONG KONG PEOPLE. SOME OF THE INDEPENDENT PAPERS CALLED ON OMELCO NOT TO CONTINUE ITS FIGHT FOR A LARGER QUOTA BECAUSE IN REALITY, BRITAIN WOULD NOT GIVE IN ON THIS.

4. PEKING CONTROLLED PAPERS ADOPTED A HOSTILE STAND ON THE SCHEME. ALTHOUGH THE EDITORIALS OF THE PAPERS REACTED MILDLY TO THE SCHEME, COMMENTATORS AND CONTRIBUTORS ATTACKED THE SCHEME BY SAYING THAT IT SERVED BRITISH INTERESTS ONLY AND THAT IT WOULD DIVIDE THE COMMUNITY. SOME OF THE COMMENTATORS AND CONTRIBUTORS QUESTIONED THE LEGAL STATUS OF THOSE HONG KONG PEOPLE WHO WERE GIVEN THE RIGHT OF

PAGE

1

UNCLASSIFIED