Constitutional Reforms (44)
Date
Statements by Chinese
Officials
Statements by Government
Officials
News Comments/Editorials
Statements/Comments by others
29.12.85 (cont'd)
30.12.85
(Chief Secretary Sir David Akers-Jones): The development of repre- sentative system and the Basic Law must converge. Britain had the final say on HK's administration during the transition. China would be shown a draft copy of the 1987 Green Paper on representative government before it was made public for comment.
(reported by TVB-Jade)
(Chief Secretary Sir David Akers-Jones):
Direct elections to Legco would be a big change but Britain would not consult China on that.
(Chai Sun of HK Economic Journal): Recent remarks by Ji Pengfei that changes should not depart from the fundamental principle showed that China's earlier promises on no change and on the "one country, two systems' were no more than tactics to maintain HK people's confidence.
(Ming Pao): Democratic systems could not resist Communism but military might could.
(Wah Kiu Yat Po): Changes carried out or being planned in HK had not deviated from the fundamental principles.
(Tsin Sai-nin Chairman of the Association for Democracy of HK): BLCC and Legco members should jointly set up a group to study the compatibility between the Basic Law and the political reforms.
(report) (Martin Lee, interviewed by Ming Pao): If the SAR Government was to enjoy a high degree of autonomy, those in power must be elected by the people and should be subject to recall. China opposed direct elections because of influence by the capitalists who wanted a calm climate to make money in the next few years before packing up and leave.
(Legco Unofficial Martin Lee): The statement by the Chief Secretary that Britain was responsible for administering HK up to 1997 indicated that HK Government was not a
Page 150Page 151