RESTRICTED
11
MDHIAN
.91
5.
TODAY, THE TWO MAIN PRO-CHINA NEWSPAPERS HAVE COME OUT CRITICISING THE PASSAGE OF THE BILL. WEN WEI PO IN ITS EDITORIAL ARGUED THAT THE BILL WAS PART OF THE ELECTORAL PACKAGE WHICH COULD NOT BE DECOUPLED. ITS ENACTMENT WAS A ''JUMP START'' ATTEMPTING TO PUT PRESSURE ON THE CHINESE SIDE BY A FAIT ACCOMPLI AND WAS NOT IN LINE WITH THE SPIRIT OF THE ''THREE COMPLIANCES'' THIS WOULD AFFECT THE SINO-BRITISH TALKS. WITHOUT ANY CONSENSUS BETWEEN CHINESE AND BRITISH GOVERNMENTS, ANY ''JUMP, START'' ARRANGEMENTS WOULD NOT STRADDLE 1997. IT URGED THE BRITISH SIDE TO IMMEDIATELY STOP ANY ''JUMP START DURING NEGOTIATIONS AND THAT THE BRITISH SIDE SHOULD SHOW SINCERITY IN ORDER TO ENSURE SUCCESS OF THE TALKS. IT ALSO SAID THAT THE BRITISH SIDE SHOULD BEAR ANY CONSEQUENCES FOR THE ''JUMP START''.
6
THE TA KUNG PO HAS A SHORT ARTICLE ON THE ENACTMENT OF THE
BILL SAYING THAT IT WOULD CAUSE HINDRANCE TO THE SINO-BRITISH
TALKS. IT ARGUED THAT THE PASSAGE OF THE BILL WAS AN UNILATERAL
ACTION BY THE BRITISH HONG KONG GOVERNMENT TO LEGISLATE PART OF THE GOVERNOR'S ELECTORAL PACKAGE IN ADVANCE OF ANY AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE TWO GOVERNMENTS ON THE 1994/95 ELECTIONS. IT FURTHER
CRITICISED THAT INCREASING THE NUMBER OF THE ELECTED DB MEMBERS IMPLIED ABOLITION OF APPOINTED MEMBERSHIP AND EXPANSION OF DBS' FUNCTIONS AND POWERS. THESE PROPOSALS, ACCORDING TO THE ARTICLE, HAD BEEN OPPOSED BY THE MAJORITY OF DB MEMBERS AND OTHER SECTORS
OF THE COMMUNITY.
PATTEN
YYYY
ΜΑΙΝ
.HK POLICY
HKD
PUSD
FED
65
DISTRIBUTION
72
NTCD
PLANNERS
RAD
PS
LEGAL ADVISERS//MS
BARRETT
LEGAL ADVISERS//MISS BROOKS
LEGAL ADVISERS//MR GILES
NEWS D
ADDITIONAL
7
CAOFF//SIR R BRAITHWAITE (DIO)
CAOFF//MISS NEVILLE-JONES CAOFF //MR SIBSON
PS/MR GOODLAD
SIR J COLES
MR HUM
PAGE
2
PS NO 10.
RESTRICTED
NNNN