experience, they proposed that nine new functional constituencies should be formed in the same way. They proposed a byzantine system open to manipulation for the
Election Committee to return 10 members of the Legislative
Council. They proposed a voting method for the geographical constituencies tilted to ensure that the less popular parties
won seats.
We went as far as we could to bridge the gap. As part of that, we explored fully the possibility of an interim understanding which would allow legislation to be introduced on the most urgent issues. But the Chinese side refused to accept two elements which in our judgement were essential to fair and open elections. First, the abolition of appointed seats in the
District Boards and Municipal Councils, so that they like the
Legislative Council, would be fully elected by 1994-5. Second,
the single seat-single vote method for the Legislative Council
geographical elections: even though they had accepted this
method for the District Board and Municipal Council elections, and it was uncontroversial in Hong Kong. Without this element,
an interim agreement would not cover all the issues on which
legislation is most urgent, and would not therefore have gained
any more time to discuss the remaining issues.
We now need to get on with legislation on the urgent issues to
enable the elections to be held on time. The Hong Kong
Government's Bill is limited to those issues. We hope that
talks can continue on the remainder. Meanwhile the Governor
will be consulting members of the Hong Kong Legislative Council
on the content of draft legislation on these remaining issues. It will be for them to pass legislation in the best interests of
Hong Kong. This is a heavy responsibility. But we and the
Governor have consistently said that we cannot go further, nor
can we go less far, than the people of Hong Kong wish us to go.
statememt.8/BRIEFS/NJH
4