SECRET
So by
have not undertaken to agree everything on their terms. implication some degree of unilateralism must be allowed for. For their part, the Chinese have already made it clear they are prepared to challenge the continuity ideal where Martin Lee is concerned.
6. It is not evident from the summary record whether this meeting discussed the tactics of handling the Chinese on these questions. We look forward to seeing your 'Critical Path' paper (No 14/92). We shall need to keep in close touch on this aspect, which will be a key element in the paper which the Secretary of State will be putting to his OPD (K) colleagues next month. (One point which you may already have considered, if you have been looking at possible sweeteners, is whether there is any prospect of any of Hong Kong's NPC "delegates" or CPPCC members winning LegCo seats in 1995 - or of the Chinese appointing any of the 1995 intake to either organ.)
Voting System
7. I am sorry that this committee-draft is so long, but I have run out of time to negotiate abridgement! May I nonetheless add the purely personal thought that, even if you have now decided to go for a single-seat single-vote system, it is perhaps worth considering whether there might be tactical advantage in keeping another option in play for the time being, by including a passage in the LegCo speech suggesting another look at multi-seat constituencies with a single transferable vote (PR) system. The risk is that this could give the advocates of the double-seat single-vote another chance to peddle their dubious wares. The possible benefit is that it could avoid all attention focussing on the elements of the package likely to cause most controversy with the Chinese. A little harmless smoke might be helpfully distracting, and it would not cause us much pain whichever of the two options we finally plumped for.
8. On the substance of the issue, I share your sympathy for STV for Hong Kong's circumstances (SSSV is best at producing a polarisation of opinion between one strong Government party and one strong Opposition party). I think the most serious objection to making the fairly radical change to STV at this stage would be if the victors of last year's direct elections were all strongly opposed to it. We are of course familiar with the UDHK leaders' public statements on voting systems, but I wonder whether in private Martin Lee might not be fairly open-minded about STV?
Your sincerely,
Nigel (the Blonins of HCD!)
N J Cox
Hong Kong Department
cc fi J Coles.
p.lai.PR.JRB
SECRET