-
legislature eg absence of incapacity). It, also, is silent on whether there may be any other possible qualifications for election,
3.
As to the specific qualifications proposed, both nationality and the absence of a right of abode in a third country are factors which are not irrelevant to the genuineness of a local connection (local is not only Hong Kong not Peking, it is also Hong Kong not UK). But leaving that aside a nationality requirement is not unusual in national legislatures and a right of abode in a third country may raise questions as to the commitment of the individual to Hong Kong. The proposed qualifications therefore are not in themselves so unreasonable as to be evidence of bad faith.
4.
It follows, therefore, that a requirement which will limit to 15% those who have the additional qualities of a different nationality or a right of abode is no more inconsistent with the Joint Declaration than would be a general provision applying to all persons who sought membership of the legislature. Whether the proposed limitation to 15% membership is workable is another
matter.
5. On previous occasions JD 74 has been introduced into the argument that a nationality requirement is inconsistent with the Joint Declaration. JD 74 deals with the public service. It is irrelevant to membership of the legislature.
6. My view as set out above is based exclusively on the construction of the Joint Declaration. It was said in the second half of paragraph 2 of Hong Kong telno 4079 that EXCO had stressed the importance during the negotiations that the legislature should remain open to all nationalities. It is not clear to me whether this point was pressed with the Chinese or whether there was any indication of the Chinese accepting it. cannot therefore advise whether there is an issue of good faith involved in the new Chinese proposals as regards membership of the legislature.
I
7. The current telegrams also raised three other issues. Namely differential voting, the 15% nationality bar, and the GEC.
The
8. As regards differential voting, it is not the best arrangement for the dispatch of business and in the form in which it has emerged from Guangzhou it is a very flimsy and ineffective device so far as government bills are concerned. Government can always present the bill a second time when only a simple majority of the whole is required. It is not clear what the position would be as regards private members bills. However, the proposal lacks the great disadvantage, which was to be found in the bicameral proposal, that the various elements would operate in different chambers and would therefore not be subject to single chamber debate in which they were forced to hear the views of the other elements. As against this, of course, the votes of the directly elected members in their half of the