RESTRICTED
slight concern that it implied that there was no real difference between employment by HKG and by the SARG, ie it
diminished the importance of the ending of officers'
employment as members of HMOCS in a British dependent territory. Although HMG's and HKG's public position, which
HMOCS officers themselves defended vigorously, was to stress the continuity through 1997, the reality was that there was a clear stopping point on 30 June 1997 and no continuity
between the HKG and the SARG. HMOCS had been set up in 1954 precisely in order to recruit officers in the new conditions
where the termination of British sovereignty could be
envisaged in successive dependent territories, ensuring that
the officers were not left without protection at that
point.
12. They wished to know why Ministers were hesitant about
applying normal HMOCs arrangements to Hong Kong. Did the problem lie with the Treasury? Or did some China dimension or considerations regarding the Hong Kong civil service lie
behind the decision?
13. They wished to know in what light the UK team would report their views to Ministers. What additional points
would we make? What recommendations?
14. They urged that when Ministers came to take decisions they should study at the same time the assessments prepared for security reasons and available to the Cabinet about what Hong Kong would be like before and after 30 June 1997.
These might paint a bleak picture of Hong Kong's prospects and the prospects for members of HMOCS. Ministers should look at them and judge in all fairness against this background whether proposals of the kind we had outlined would be fulfilling their commitments and could justify reneging on consistently held positions.
NJCACN/6
RESTRICTED
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.