government of a British Dependent Territory thinks this might be an appropriate method of preparing a colony for the maintenance of its autonomous "lifestyle", it is, I believe, a proposition which would bear careful and critical examination, perhaps in the pragmatic context of deciding how best to assist Beijing to understand the essence of true autonomy. I should add that rule changes on textbooks have been announced recently "to allow a greater degree of autonomy in matters concerning syllabus and textbooks". I hope in due course to see if this problem has been remedied.
2.14.
2.15.
"Lifestyle" and Minimal Regulation of Commerce
The commercial aspects of "lifestyle" are crucial to Hong Kong's future. In his speech to Legco on 10th October, 1990, the Governor said: -
'Above all, it would be difficult to overstate the importance of
our economic relationship with China,
The southern coastal belt of China, and the Pearl River Delta in particular, is set to be an area of substantial economic growth for the next two or three decades. Hong Kong must be ready and able to play a major part in this process.
I believe that it might be wise to clarify the way in which this "major part" will be best and most effectively played. In a paper given recently at a Hong Kong/Guangdong joint seminar, Chu Wen Li, the Senior Economist and Vice President of the People's Bank of China Guangdong Branch, said the following: -
"[The co-operation between Hong Kong and Guangdong] should be transformed from its self-initiated, civil and disorganised form into organised, co-ordinated and closely-worked form. If necessary, a co-ordinating organisation participated by both financial and business sectors of the two areas may be set up to co-ordinate the two economies' development, their investment policies and related matters. Individual enter- prises may also be directed through lending policy to promote their co-operative development and to facilitate their re-structuring and rationalisation of the industry mix and layout.
This passage has caused me some disquiet. The Basic Law and Joint Declaration provide that financial, commercial and economic autonomy is guaranteed for Hong Kong, and yet here is a suggestion which on its face could be contrary to that. Is it contrary to the promise of autonomy for Hong Kong? Is it representative or authoritative? Would its implementation intrude on Hong Kong's lifestyle? Would it breach the Joint Declaration and Basic Law? Conversely, does it merely