Pledges of support seen as empty words

Just over a month ago, the Foreign Secretary, Malcolm Rifkind, was in Hong Kong delivering the blunt message that the people of the colony should not expect too much from the outgoing sovereign power, whose hands were largely tied, in the remaining year and a half of colonial rule.

The message was not well received but was accepted as reflecting new realities. Yesterday, however, the Prime Minister delivered a seemingly entirely different message. His main theme, stated not once but several times, was, as he put it, that "Hong Kong will never have to walk alone".

He said Britain would be "vigilant" in making sure that agreements made with China over the transfer of sovereignty were kept and stressed the high level of business, trading and other connections.

After so many disappointments about British policy Hong Kong people are naturally sceptical about the motives of the Government in London. Martin Lee, the leader of the Democratic Party, the colony's largest party, was so confident that Mr Rifkind would do nothing about a vague promise to grant visa-access to Britain for holders of Hong Kong's new Special Administrative Region passports that he bet him pounds 50 that the pledge would not be fulfilled. Yesterday, Mr Lee gave Mr Major a cheque to pass on to Mr Rifkind and wondered aloud whether he had finally hit on a way to make Britain honour vaguely made pledges.

Others are not gambling, they are simply shunning all things British. On Sunday night, a dinner in Mr Major's honour was notable for the number of seats occupied by civil servants which, in past years would have been filled by business leaders and other prominent personalities who never turned down an invitation to Government House.

Mr Major told his audience that businessmen with access to Chinese officials had a "special responsibility" in the run-up to the handover. "If you don't appear to care about the survival of Hong Kong's system - its rule of law, clean government and a free society - then others may draw the conclusion that they don't really matter." The businessmen showed no sign of responding, however. They sense the presence of a dying regime and see no need to revive it.

But what of the bulk of the population who have no foreign passport in their back pocket and no access to the leaders of the new regime? What will they make of Mr Major's visit? One young journalist seemed to sum up thegeneral mood of cynicism. "He's just trying to look good by offering us visas for Britain. It's no big deal and costs him nothing."

The only member of the public permitted to ask Mr Major a question during his visit, rose at the businessman's lunch to ask the Prime Minister whether he could "sleep comfortably at night" after handing over 6 million people to a government they did not want.

This question produced Mr Major's only flash of anger during the day, causing him to confuse the lease which Britain holds for possession of the New Territories, with a lease for Hong Kong as a whole. It is the New Territories lease which expires next year, whereas the central part of the colony was ceded to Britain in perpetuity.

It may be a pedantic point because the colony would find it difficult to operate without its New Territories hinterland, but it is indicative of the lack of attention that British politicians pay to the details of Hong Kong problems. Such things are noticed, and even when the Prime Minister comes bearing small gifts, they are received with little more than a shrug.