RESTRICTED
2
In particular we have for a long time (since
S [or S David Jeaffreson's speech in LegCo in 1987 to be precise) been openly prepared to even out the right of abode provisions in our present law, effectively to remove most of the differential between Brits and other non-Chinese, The other matters are more minor in perception, or have been to date. We have always wanted to move first on right of abode as we have had some pressure from e.g the Americans. But China has stalled and it's looking increasingly likely that all aspects will go in a compendium Basic Law alignment Immigration Bill, which we would perhaps try to do in 1995. Some clauses might have to be for deferred implementation to midnight 30 June/1 July 1997. But these might not need to include most of the above.
•
The angle that Hutchings raises in the second half of his piece is also true and relevant. We have had some media complaints and a LegCo question complaining about tourists (and especially European tourists including English visitors') taking up types of employment which they did not do before and in many cases may not be entitled to do now, e.g. street hawking.
The phrasing of the Legco question was a little fortunate as it was wider than the target. We were able to say that Urban and Regional Services Department staff take action against all unlicensed hawkers and that between 1990 and May 1993, a total of about 1,000 arrests of foreign hawkers were made; but the majority of these were Filipino hawkers which might not have been what the question was really after. Tourists are prosecuted for hawking without a licence, and will then be unlikely to be given any further extension of stay - so we were 0.K. on the general point of concern. But it is not just lesser priority/inadequate resources which allows some British visitors to abuse our tough immigration regime, but the laws.
And if the problem, or perception of it continues it will be useful that we have shown by this story that we mean some business above the call of duty in this direction,
You will have noted that the reaction to our water-testing, even from British citizens being approached by journalists trying to stir, suggests that there should be no problem with this issue here. You will see that the editorial in the SCMP of 2.9.93, also attached, was favourable. I hope you can achieve the same with your Daily Telegraph editorial contacts but we assume that anyway there should be no real depth in any lobby even in say, Bournemouth from Annex C, to maintain every little privilege in Hong Kong for British citizens right up to the last minute.
Yous
Re
RESTRICTED
(Simon Vickers) Security Branch
(:
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.