the case of the Election Committee, there should, at each
stage, be a genuine choice. That is why we propose, for example, that all members of the Election Committee should
themselves have been elected.
Our Second main objective relates to the through train. The whole point of our discussing these election arrangements with China is to reach an understanding whereby members of LegCo elected in 1995 can ride the through train to the first
legislature of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region in 1997. For this to happen, these arrangements need to meet the concerns of both sides. We have therefore agreed to
match in 1995 the numbers set out in the Basic Law for the
composition of the 1997 LegCo. And we have acknowledged that
members of the 1995 LegCo will need 'confirmation' by the
Preparatory Committee to serve beyond 1997, as set out in the
Basic Law. What we are asking for in return is that the
Preparatory Committee will not apply arbitrary or subjective criteria. Our view is that if members of the 1995 LegCo are ready to pledge allegiance to the SAR and to uphold the Basic
Law, as required in the Basic Law, that should be sufficient.
We would not have been spending the last 5 months or so in intensive negotiations with China if we were not serious about
wanting to reach an agreement. It would of course be much the
best outcome for everyone concerned. Mr Hurd made it very clear to Foreign Minister Qian Qichen when they met in New York
recently that we were working for success in these talks. The
gap between our two sides is still wide. We have made a serious
effort to meet Chinese concerns but, so far, there has been no
commensurate response from them. I very much hope we may see something in the coming weeks. As everyone keeps saying, it takes efforts from both sides to reach agreement.
din.gdl.BB
SLM
3