the population should have a vote at their work place as well as a vote in their constituency; making sure that the Members of the "Election Committee" responsible for electing
10 members of the 1995 Legislative Council will themselves
have been elected, for example as members of the District Boards. This adds up to a substantial broadning of democracy.
Some Chinese commentators have said that we should not have
announced anything on the 1995 elections until we had reached
agreement with China first. Of course China has an interest in the electoral arrangements for 1995, given our joint commitment to a smooth transition in 1997. I gave the Chinese Foreign Minister an outline of them in New York a fortnight before Chris Patten's speech. But it is the people of Hong Kong who are directly affected by these proposals. They have a right to express their views on their own electoral system, and not to wait in suspense for months while these ideas are
Ĉ discussà with China.
Chris Patten rightly decided to take an open approach, to lay out his proposals, to invite views on them from Hong Kong
people and to make clear that they will be for discussion with the Chinese side, starting with his visit to Peking later this
month.
WE
First Chinese reactions have shown that they see difficulties with some of these proposals. There will be plenty to discuss with them. But must respond to the widespread view in Hong Kong that some further steps towards democracy are needed. The principle agreed with China of two systems in one country means that there need be no read across to China.
by early next year
-
-
I hope that in time for the necessary legislation in
Hong Kong we can have come to broad agreement with China on
the way forward. At the end of the day, we and Chris Patten will have to reach a judgement on the right way forward.
press.article.GEN.bern