TNAG-2630-FCO40-3821-Future-of-Hong-Kong-nationality-British-National-(Overseas)-1992 — Page 60

RESTRICTED

more than a handful of people) were not from genuine WHMS but from people for whom it would be all work and no holiday. Otherwise I cannot see our Ministers or our Posts being able to rebut charges of racism when explaining the changes to

overseas Governments.

3.

I was naturally glad to hear Anthony Langdon say that we

would have time to inform Commonwealth Governments of the

proposed changes before they were announced here, particularly because our second presentational problem relates to Hong

Kong. They have no difficulty on substance with any of the

changes proposed (other than prior entry clearance). But

anything which appears to restrict the rights of their

citizens before 1997 needs careful handling. The Governor wishes to have the opportunity to present the changes in a way which will not cause unnecessary alarm or tension. It is

therefore important that there should be no premature leaks.

4.

Presentationally, the case of the Swedish male au pair may be helpful. If changes to the Rules on au pairs are announced at the same time as those on WHMS, there may be less attention

paid to WHMS; and we can say that since we had to update the

Rules for au pairs, it made sense to do so for WHMS at the

same time.

5. I now turn to the detailed changes (paras 19 and 8 of

INB (92) 40). As I said at the meeting, we have no difficulty with "no-switching". On the other hand, you will not be

surprised that we do not agree to prior entry clearance for

all WHMs. The only problem countries whom we do not already subject to visa requirements for WHMs are Malaysia and Hong

Kong. There are strong political objections to doing so there

because of the real threat to substantial British interests.

You will recall the Malaysian "Buy non-British" campaign in

the 1980s. I have already mentioned the delicate position in

RESTRICTED

Page 60Page 61