..E. BEIJING CRYPIEK
THU AS AUG 93 11:448
PG.12
SECRET
discussing it in these talks because our hands are somehow
tied by the NPC Decision and Annex I of the Basic Law.
4. But we have carefully studied the Basic Law and the NPC
Decisions and are clear that they do not tie our hands on this
matter. The NPC Decision indeed states that one requirement
for the members of the 1995 Legco to ride the Through Train is
that 10 of the 60 members must have been elected by an
Election Committee. But neither the Decision nor the Basic
Law itself lays down what sort of Election Committee that
should be or how it should be constituted. Nowhere is it
suggested that the 1995 Election Committee should be
constituted on the lines set out in Annex I. In fact Annex II
Section I para 2 of the Basic Law makes quite explicitly clear
that the 1995 Election Committee is not the same as that set
•
out in Annex I para 2. You have yourself pointed this out in
the context of your argument
or rather your assertion,
since you have not yet provided any reasoned arguments - that
the size of the 1995 Election Committee should be different
from that set out in Annex I.
5.
It surely follows therefore that, since Annex I para 2 is
not in this context a relevant provision of the Basic Law, it
would be quite improper for the Preparatory Committee to have
regard to it in deciding whether the composition of the 1995
LegCo was in conformity with the relevant provisions of the
Basic Law. It would be as if the Preparatory Committee were
arbitrarily to refuse to confirm members of Legĉo who were
less than 40 years old because Article 44 of the BL says that