SIR Percy Cradock is a much-labelled man. With the abusive legends 'appeaser', 'kowtower', 'mandarin' and 'sinologist' already hanging from his neck, he is now likely to be categorised as a commercial hustler, advocating a policy which has been summed up by Mark Roberti (Sunday Morning Post, February 11) as: 'Appease China on Hong Kong so that Britain can develop better trade relations with China.' What other placards, one wonders, are being prepared for Sir Percy? 'China roader'? 'Running dog of Beijing'? (His ordeals in the Chinese capital in 1967 will have familiarised him with the process). Despite the impressively detailed research which went into the writing of The Fall of Hong Kong, Mr Roberti's conclusions both in the book and article - notably that anything less than 'full democracy' amounts to a betrayal of the people - suggest he lives in an unreal world of black and white simplicities, where there are goodies and baddies: the people versus the tycoons, democrats versus elitists; with one protagonist in the cowboy scenario, the Governor, now seen as defecting from one camp to the other. And in this setting a central myth has been propagated: that opposition to Mr Patten's policies comes exclusively from the world of business. Things may seem so simple in New York. Experience on the spot has been different. Thus in the last 10 years the only major industrialist whom I have heard expressing unqualified views on the political future of Hong Kong has been Mr Simon Keswick of Jardine's - calling for all-out democratisation. Conversely, apart from Sir Percy, the most convincing arguments I have heard for concluding that the Governor rushed unwisely into confrontation in 1992 have come from Mrs Elsie Tu. Although vilified by her political opponents, she cannot be accused of having any commercial interests, or connections, and her willingness to fight for a square deal for the man in the street is a matter of record. The Fall of Hong Kong contains no reference to Mr Keswick's radical declarations and makes no mention of Mrs Tu. Why? Was it because the author considered her views irrelevant to his thesis of a wholesale betrayal? Or because they did not support it? D.K. LEWIS Lamma
