{ע}
THE CHINESE STUE HAD LATER MADE IT VERY CLEAR ON SEVERAL
OCCASIONS THAT CHINA WOULD NOT COMMIT ITSELF IN ADVANCE TO ANY CHANGE
S
TO BE MADE DURING THE TRANSITION PERIOD IRRESPECTIVE OF WHETHER
O OT THESE WERE CONSISTENT WITH THE BASIC LAW. IN THE CHINESE
EW, THE SERIES OF REFORMS WE WERE INTRODUCING FOLLOWING PUBLI- CATION OF THE WHITE PAPER WERE NEITHER MODERATE NOR PRUDENT.
(KE ADDED THAT HE DID NOT MEAN THAT WE DID NOT WANT TO BE PRUDENT, SIMPLY THAT WE WERE NOT PRUDENT ENOUGH). THESE CHANGES COULD NOT
BUT AROUSE CHINESE CONCERNS. HE WOULD TALK FURTHER ABOUT THESE AT
A LATER STAGE.
10. (A) CLOSE CO-OPERATION WAS OF VITAL IMPORTANCE FOR ENSURING
PROSPERITY AND STABILITY IN HONG KONG DURING THE TRANSITION PERIOD
AND THE SMOOTH TRANSFER OF GOVERNMENT IN 1997. THE JLG HAD WORKED
WELL TO THIS END SINCE ITS ESTABLISHMENT. IT WAS PRECISELY ON THIS
BASIS OF MUTUAL TRUST THAT THE CHINESE SIDE HAD SUGGESTED AN EXCHANGE
OF INFORMATION AND CONSULTATION IN THE JLG ON THE REFORM OF GOVERNMENT STRUCTURE. AS THEY HAD SAID BEFORE, THE CHINESE SIDE
DID NOT INTEND AND HAD NO INTEREST IN INTERFERING IN THE ADMINISTRATI
ON
OF HONG KONG DURING THE TRANSITION PERIOD. THE CHANGES CONSEQUENT
UPON REFORMS WERE MAJOR AND FUNDAMENTAL IN NATURE. THEY DID NOT
FALL WITHIN THE CATEGORY OF THE DAY TO DAY ADMINISTRATION OF HONG
KONG, AS WE WOULD REALISE IF WE THOUGHT ABOUT IT CALMLY. THEY WENT
FAR BEYOND THIS AND HAD A BEARING ON STABILITY AND PROSPERITY IN THE
DRANSITION PER
ON THE SMOOTH TRANSFER OF THE SAR AND ON THE
WORK OF THE BASIC LAW DRAFTING COMMITTEE. IT WOULD THEREFORE BE
IRRESPONSIBLE OF THE CHINESE SIDE NOT TO RAISE THE SUBJECT IN THE
JLG. GIVEN THE TERMS OF ANNEX 11 TO THE JOINT DECLARATION, THE
JLG WAS THE APPROPRIATE PLACE FOR CONSULTATIONS.
(B) KE REFERRED TO OUR CONCERNS ABOUT REACTION IN HONG KONG AND
THE EFFECT ON THE AUTHORITY OF THE HONG KONG GOVERNMENT.
THE CHINESE SIDE BELIEVED THAT PEOPLE IN HONG KONG WERE QUITE
READY FOR POSSIBLE DISCUSSION OF THE SUBJECT AT THE JLG. THERE WAS EVEN AN OPEN DEBATE IN THE PRESS ABOUT THE POSSIBILITY OF DISCUSSION
AT THE CURRENT MEETING. AS TO CONCERN ABOUT THE AUTHORITY OF THE HONG KONG GOVERNMENT, ONE REASON WHY THE CHINESE HAD RAISED THE SUBJECT FO
R
DISCUSSION WAS PRECISELY TO PRESERVE THE AUTHORITY OF THE HONG KONG GOVERNMENT. IF WE CONTINUED OUR EFFORTS AT REFORM OF THE GOVERNMENT STRUCTURE, THE END RESULT WOULD PROBABLY BE IN CONTRADICTION WITH THE BASIC LAW. HOW WOULD THE HONG KONG GOVERNMENT HANDLE SUCH A CONTRADICTION? WOULD SUCH A SITUATION BE LIKELY TO INCREASE OR
перослое
THAT
COVERNMENTIO
MUTUOD ITV2 WE
BAR GALLER
та
THINK