CONFIDENTIAL
in the most minor way from the structure of local government elsewhere in China. An autonomous region is, to all intents and purposes, merely another province, under a different name, designed to take account of local peoples' wish to have their racial, cultural or religious differences distinguished. The same applies to the lower level autonomous areas.
4. These were generally backward, with primitive peoples lacking modern education, local government traditions and any experience of modern economic development. They were inhabited by people's who had generally suffered from "great Han chauvinism", and who were suspicious of the central government. They were also generally in areas in which borders cut across ethnic or other links. The autonomous areas were and are designed to assure the local population that the PRC would respect their traditions and culture, but at the same time, they were designed to provide the means of educating the people in modern ways and incorporating them in the new state.
..
"
5. Hong Kong is different. An article in the pro-Peking magazine Wide Angle of 16 February 1985 said that the Basic Law is unique: "it cannot be copied from China, neither can it be copied from the United Kingdom
Some months later, a "Commentator" article on the convening of the Basic Law drafting committee, in the People's Daily of 2 July 1985, repeated the same theme: "the drafting of the Basic Law
is a great project because they are no precedents to follow". Both the PRC and the people of Hong Kong would see little similarity between the question of bringing tribal nomads both into the 20th century and into harmonious relation with the Han Chinese and the government of the PRC. people of Hong Kong are Han Chinese, they are familiar with the modern world far more so than most Han Chinese, in fact and while they have developed in a different fashion from the rest of China, the solutions to the problems that may cause is not to be found in the methods used for minorities.
A
The
6. It seems that the Chinese are not at all clear as to the form the Basic Law should take. It is a new venture and they seem geniunely to be seeking advise from a wide range of people both inside and outside Hong Kong, as to the most sensible way of formulating this fundamental document. The need for wide consultation is formally endorsed in the constitution of the Basic Law Consultative Committee set out in August. Much early Chinese comment, both public and private, was taken up with the composition of the drafting committee, and subsequently, with the composition of the proposed consultative committees. There is clearly some debate among the Chinese on how widely representative the latter can (or perhaps should) be. Ji Peng Fei has stressed on a number of occasions that there is the need for the widest possible range of Hong Kong opinion to be taken into account. of the fullest statements to this effect was made to the opening session of the Basic Law drafting committee on 1 July. On the same occasion, he made it clear that Hong Kong people would be able to comment on the drafts, as well as contributing to the initial drafting. Others have echoed this position, including Li
One
CONFIDENTIAL