16-02-1993 15:30 HKGO LONDON 071 495 5033
44 71 495 5033
P.02
MLER.
And so I think that the problems are isolated and certainly we would not wish them in any way to extend over to a wide range of contacts, which are so important in the runup to 1997.
Q:
And what do you say to those who point out that the Patten proposals are a breach of the Joint Declaration and the Basic Law?
A:
We have been meticulous in forming those proposals to ensure that they are in line with the Joint Declaration and the Basic Law, and we have heard accusations that they are contrary to the spirit of the Basic Law or the spirit of the Joint Declaration. We have seen no evidence whatsoever to suggest that they contravene either of these two documents.
Q:
I'd like to find out if they aren't in contravention of the Basic Law or even the spirit of it, why are the Chinese so upset and how long can this stalemate may continue really, I mean how long can you let this impasse drift?
Q:
If the proposal are within the spirit, or the letter of the Joint Declaration and the Basic Law, why are the Chinese so angry about it?
A:
I think one of the reasons there has been a strong reaction is that on this occasion Mr Patten felt that he had to but proposale cne people of Hong Kong, put them on the table before he went to discuss them with the Chinese Government. I think that was a judgement taham about thẻ mươi vî the people in Hong Kong in 1992 and the '90s general, that they would not accept any secret deal, that they wanted to know what Mr Patten had in mind. I think it was that
that which really produced the strong reaction from the Chinese sides was a departure from previous practice. Obviously, we don't wish this situation to drag on. It's not helpful to have this cloud hanging over us, over Sino-British relations, Hong Kong-Chinése relations, and we hope that sooner or later the Chinese side will be prepared to either discuss the proposals or indeed discuss the other wide range of political issues, which are still being held up by this present difficulty.
Q:
So it's really because they just weren't consulted first in accordance with previous practice.
A:
I think that has been one of the reasons why there has been such a strong reaction to the proposal.
Q:
But do you think they are actually opposed to the proposals themselves in principle or simply the way it's been handled?
A: Well, there is obviously an element of that in that too in that the proposals are within, in our view, clearly within the Basic Law, but they do present a further stage towards the deomcratic development
· of Hong Kong. It may be that the pace which they indicate is too fast for the Chinese side and that within the framework of the Basic Law they would not wish the franchise for the two difficult areas, for example the Election Committee and the functional constituencies, to be drawn so widely. That may be a problem also.
tindaslahahaha cha, an
3
TOTAL P.02