The Basic Law, Hong Kong's mini-constitution for post-1997, promulgated by China in 1990, says nothing about the 1995 Legislative Council elections, which are a British
responsibility. It lays down the composition of the 1997 legislature in some detail, although it says nothing specific about practical arrangements, for example, for the functional constituencies, or the formation of the Election Committee,
which is to elect 10 members of the Legislative Council. The
Basic Law has implications for the 1995 elections if the 1995 Legislative Council is to carry on through 1997 for its full 4-year term (the so-called through-train). Everyone is agreed that the maximum degree of continuity in this and other respects
would be best for Hong Kong.
In the interests of continuity, Mr Patten's proposals for the
1995 elections take careful account of the provisions of the
Basic Law. His overall aim has been to respond to the demand for more democracy in Hong Kong by extending the franchise for the indirectly-elected seats, while remaining within the terms of the Joint Declaration and the Basic Law. His proposals are, by any objective standard, modest and they have been well received in Hong Kong, in spite of the strongly-expressed opposition from China. The problem for Hong Kong is not the Governor's proposals but the immoderate Chinese reaction to
them.
Why are the Chinese so angry? Some people suggest it is because these proposals were not discussed with them beforehand. But we gave Chinese Ministers and officials details of these proposals
before the Governor told the Legislative Council about them. We
have repeatedly made it clear that these proposals were not set in concrete, that we were ready to discuss them with China and to listen to any alternative ideas they might have. But so far China has refused to discuss them with us, or to come up with
any constructive ideas of their own. We did not think it right,
goodlad.speech. PR.JRB