TNAG-2275-FCO40-3274-Hong-Kong-and-the-media-1991 — Page 113

28 January 1991

DIEU-

Foreign & Commonwealth

Office

FATED

28

London SW1 2AH

HKB

301/1

Alan Penrith Esq

British High Commission Ottawa

Dear Alan

9

EDMONTON JOURNAL EDITORIAL ON HONG KONG

صر

1.I am sorry not to have replied sooner to your fax on 21 January about the Edmonton Journal Editorial on Hong Kong. Last week was a particularly hectic one, as we were briefing Lord Caithness for his next visit to the territory.

I

2. This is indeed a deplorable piece of journalism, full of inaccuracies and misunderstandings. We agree it would be useful to respond to some of its more wayward assertions. am faxing to you together with this letter the latest issue of our "Bull Points" on Hong Kong, which should enable you to deal with some of them. In particular, the section on nationality makes plain that the purpose of the British Nationality (Hong Kong) Bill is the exact opposite of what is alleged here.

3.

The fundamental misapprehension underlying this editorial is that it is solely up to Britain to choose whether or not Hong Kong should revert to China in 1997 when the lease expires. Again the "Bull Points" (eg paras 4 and 5 of the section on relations with China) deal with this.

4. The comparison between Hong Kong and Singapore, which is quite frequently made by young overseas Chinese, is quite simply a piece of wishful thinking. They may both be flourishing city states with a largely Chinese population but there similarities end. No other state had claims on Singapore, whereas China had always maintained that Hong Kong was rightfully Chinese territory and that in 1997 it should return to Chinese sovereignty. It became clear in the course of the Sino-British negotiations in the early 1980s that the Chinese were quite immovable on that point. In those circumstances it would have been chimerical and irresponsible

HUGABW

CC

}}