I very much hope that the argument we are having with China
at the moment will be resolved. But it is important for us
all to be clear what it is about. It is not as is often
reported about democracy. My proposals, I am sorry to say,
do not amount to anything you or I would recognise as
democracy. When I explained them to the Australian Foreign
Minister the other day, he remarked that they sounded to him
like two-fifths of five-eighths of democracy. And he was
right.
The argument really boils down to whether the arrangements
for the 1995 elections in Hong Kong the last under British
-
administration - will be conducted cleanly, openly and
fairly, or whether the elections will be rigged to produce a
rubber-stamp legislature which China would find compliant
rather than troublesome.
-
I strongly believe that a credible legislature not
necessarily wholly directly -elected - but at least arrived
at cleanly, fairly and openly, and not cooked to be
acceptable to one particular party or another is
fundamental to the rule of law. The same is true of freedom
of speech. Legislators and journalists fearlessly asking awkward questions - tiresome though that sometimes is for
those in positions of authority are the essential
attributes of a free society, in Hong Kong as they are here.
Last October I put foreword some proposals on how Hong Kong's
final elections under British sovereignty might be arranged.
These were not matters that had previously been agreed with
China, but matters which were outstanding and which needed
and still need to be resolved so that the elections can
take place. I stressed at the time that these were genuinely proposals and that I was willing to discuss them with the Chinese Government. I remain willing to do so, without
preconditions.
sundayexpress.art JM PERS
3