MELAAS (2)
CONFIDENTIAL
4.
Mr Lee also accused HMG and the Hong Kong Government of having
manipulated the outcome of the 1987 review of representative
government in an attempt to show that public opinion on the timing
of direct elections was still divided and that it would therefore be
right to delay the next major constitutional change until 1991. He claimed that a questionnaire used in the public opinion survey conducted by AGB McNair on behalf of the Hong Kong Government had been so long and complicated as obscure the issues. Underlying all these specific accusations was the belief that Britain had bowed to
Chinese pressure.
5. We have always maintained that our purpose is to put in place democratic structures that are likely to endure after 1997, without
being immediately overturned. The overriding need is is to secure a foundation for the future stability and prosperity of Hong Kong.
This cannot be founded on confrontation between Britain and China.
6. In commenting on Mr Lee's accusations of "broken promises" we
have taken the following line :
None of the statements by HMG in 1984/85 went beyond stating the general intention of promoting further development towards representative government, again reviewing the question of direct elections in 1987, and building up a firmly based democratic administration by 1997.
The 1984 White Paper made no commitment to introduce direct
elections in 1988. It merely noted the state of opinion at the time. The White Paper undertook to review the position in 1987: that undertaking was carried out in full.
We informed Chinese Government as a courtesy shortly before
publication of the 1988 White Paper. But decisions on the outcome
of the 1987/88 review were ours alone. The key factors in reaching those decisions were the views of the people of Hong Kong and the interests of Hong Kong.
CONFIDENTIAL