C
NOT (NO) THE OTHER WAY ROUND, IE THAT THE BASIC LAW SHOULD ADAPT TO THE RESULTS OF THE CURRENT REFORMS. THE CHINESE SIDE WANTED TO SEE THE TWO CONVERGE AND HOPED THAT BOTH SIDES WOULD CO-ORDINATE
IR ACTIONS TO MAKE SURE THIS HAPPENED. IF THEY FAILED TO DO THIS IT WOULD BE VERY BAD INDEED.
16. THE CHINESE SIDE THEREFOR PROPOSED DISCUSSION OF THE SUBJECT WITH A VIEW TO FINDING AN EARLY SOLUTION TO THE PROBLEM. KE SAID HE WOULD BE DISAPPOINTED IF WE CONTINUED TO ARGUE THAT CONSULTATIONS SHOULD NOT TAKE PLACE BECAUSE THEY WOULD AMOUNT TO INTERFERENCE IN THE DAY TO DAY ADMINISTRATION OF HONG KONG. IN ACTUAL FACT EVERYTHING DISCUSSED SO FAR IN THE JLG RELATED TO DAY TO DAY ADMINISTRATION. THERE HAD BEEN GOOD CO-OPERATION AND PROBLEMS HAD BEEN EFFECTIVELY SOLVED. IF THE JLG COULD TACKLE THESE MATTERS (WHICH REALLY DID RELATE TO DAY TO DAY ADMINISTRATION) WHY COULD IT NOT TACKLE A SUBJECT WHICH WAS NOT PART OF DAY TO DAY ADMINISTRATION? THE SUBJECT HAD A DIRECT BEARING ON STABILITY, PROSPERITY, THE TRANSFER OF GOVERNMENT AND THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE JOINT DECLARATION. THERE WAS NO REASON NOT TO DISCUSS IT.
}
17. KE REFERRED TO MY REMARK ABOUT THE PRESS MISREPORTING WHAT HAD BEEN SAID BY HONG KONG OFFICIALS. HE HOPED IT WAS A MATTER OF MISREPORTING. NEVERTHELESS THE AIM OF THE CURRENT REFORMS HAD BEEN PUBLICLY DELCARED IN PARAGRAPH 2(A) OF THE WHITE PAPER, VIZ. ''TO DEVELOP PROGRESSIVELY A SYSTEM OF GOVERNMENT THE AUTHORITY FOR WHICH IS FIRMLY ROOTED IN HONG KONG, WHICH IS ABLE TO REPRESENT AUTHORITATIVELY THE VIEWS OF THE PEOPLE OF HONG KONG, AND WHICH IS MORE DIRECTLY ACCOUNTABLE TO THE PEOPLE OF HONG KONG'' THE BRITISH SIDE SHOULD HAVE NOTED THE IMPACT OF THIS, BOTH INSIDE AND OUTSIDE HONG KONG. ANYONE WITH COMMON POLITICAL KNOWLEDGE AND FAMILIAR WITH THE HISTORY OF DECOLONISATION SINCE WORLD WAR 11 WOULD NOT FIND IT DIFFICULT TO UNDERSTAND THE BASIC IMPLICATIONS OF THIS PARAGRAPH. IT WAS NO WONDER THAT THERE WAS A LIVELY DIS- CUSSION INSIDE AND OUTSIDE HONG KONG ABOUT THE SOURCE OF POWER.
.
18. KE WAS SURPRIES THAT I HAD MENTIONED XU JIATUN IN THE JLG FORUM. A SERIOUS OBSERVER WOULD NOT HAVE QUOTED ONE SENTENCE OF XU'S PRESS CONFERENCE OUT OF CONTEXT. KE'S PERSONAL VIEW WAS THAT XU'S BASIC POINTS WERE WELL FOUNDED. SENIOR. HONG KONG OFFICIALS HAD MADE A LOT OF PUBLIC STATEMENTS ON THE REFORM OF THE GOVERNMENT STRUCTURE, CAUSING QUITE A FEW PROBLEMS. WHY SHOULD XU NOT STATE HIS VIEWS IN PUBLIC? IT WAS NOT FAIR TO SINGLE HIM OUT. IF THERE WERE PROBLEMS, IN THE FINAL ANALYSIS THEY WERE NOT THE RESULT OF XU'S REMARKS BUT THE RESULT OF THE REFORMS THEMSELVES AND STATEMENTS BY HONG KONG OFFICIALS.