11
TUESDAY, DECEMBER 1, 1992
GOVERNOR:
I AM IN FAVOUR OF AS SMOOTH A TRANSITION THROUGH 1997 AS POSSIBLE. I'M ALSO IN FAVOUR OF ARRANGEMENTS FOR EXAMPLE FOR THE 1995 ELECTIONS WHICH ARE DECENT, WHICH ARE ACCEPTABLE ΤΟ THE COMMUNITY. I SUPPOSE THAT THE HONOURABLE MEMBER COULD CONCEIVE OF ARRANGEMENTS FOR THE 1995 ELECTIONS WHICH MIGHT TRANSFER SMOOTHLY THROUGH 1997 BUT WOULD NOT BE ACCEPTABLE TO THE PEOPLE OF HONG KONG. I CERTAINLY COULD. SO THE PROBLEM WE HAVE TO ADDRESS IS ONE OF BALANCE, THAT'S WHAT I TRIED TO ADDRESS IN THE PROPOSALS THAT t BROUGHT FORWARD ON THE 7TH OF OCTOBER, AFTER, DESPITE WHAT I THINK ONE OR TWO HONOURABLE MEMBERS HAVE SAID, AFTER PROTRACTED DISCUSSIONS WITH LARGE NUMBERS OF MEMBERS OF THIS COUNCIL AND WITH OTHERS OUTSIDE AS WELL. SMOOTH TRANSITION CERTAINLY, BUT SMOOTH TRANSITION OF ARRANGEMENTS WHICH ARE FAIR AND OPEN AND ACCEPTABLE.
TIK CHI-YUEN: MR GOVERNOR, YOU MENTIONED TIME AND AGAIN THAT YOU WANT A SENSIBLE, RATIONAL DIALOGUE WITH THE CHINESE AUTHORITIES TO SOLVE THE PROBLEMS. FROM NOW TILL THE BEGINNING OF NEXT YEAR, DO YOU HAVE ANY CONCRETE PLANS IN THE PIPELINE ΤΟ EFFECT SENSIBLE RATIONAL DIALOGUE AND DO YOU ENVISAGE ANY DIFFICULTIES IN TRYING TO DO SO?
GOVERNOR:
I DON'T HAVE ANY DIFFICULTIES IN DOING SO. WHEN I WAS IN PEKING ONE OF THE SUGGESTIONS THAT WAS PUT FORWARD WAS THAT THE JOINT LIAISON GROUP COULD PROVIDE A FORUM FOR DISCUSSIONS. I'VE MADE IT PERFECTLY CLEAR, OUR AMBASSADOR TO THE JOINT LIAISON GROUP HAS MADE IT PERFECTLY CLEAR THAT THAT IS ABSOLUTELY FINE BY US. WE THINK THAT WOULD BE A PERFECTLY SRNSIBLE WAY TO MOVE FORWARD. IF CHINESE OFFICIALS HAVE ANY OTHER PROPOSALS I WILL BE VERY HAPPY ΤΟ CONSIDER THEM BECAUSE I'VE MADE IT PLAIN THAT WILL GO ANYWHERE AT ANY TIME TO TALK ΤΟ ANY ONE IN THE HOPE THAT WE CAN HAVE AS SENSIBLE AND CALM DISCUSSIONS OF THESE MATTERS AS POSSIBLE, BUT PERHAPS I CAN JUST REITERATE ONE THING AGAIN. SOMETIMES PEOPLE SUGGEST THAT FOR ME TO GO ON SAYING THAT I AM VERY HAPPY TO HAVE A RATIONAL DIALOGUE IS SOMEHOW BANGING MY HEAD AGAINST A BRICK WALL. THE POINT WAS MADE ALMOST IN THOSE TERMS IN ONE OF OUR NEWSPAPERS THIS MORNING. BUT WHAT IS MORE SENSIBLE THAN ASKING FOR A SENSIBLE DIALOGUE? I'M NOT SURE WHAT IS. I REPEAT ONCE AGAIN, AND MEAN ONCE AGAIN, THAT IF THERE ARE ANY BETTER PROPOSALS FROM ANYWHERE I WILL BE VERY HAPPY TO SEE THEM.
EMILY LAU: ABOUT
GOVERNOR, WHEN YOU WERE IN JAPAN LAST WEEK YOU SPOKE BRITAIN'S MORAL RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE HONG KONG PEOPLE AFTER 1997, YOU SAID, FOR A FEW YPARS. YESTERDAY YOUR REMARKS WERE CRITICISED BY A VICE DIRECTOR OF XIN HUA NEWS AGENCY WHO SAID BRITAIN SHOULD NOT HAVE ANY RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE HONG KONG PEOPLE AFTER 1997. MY VIEW IS EXACTLY THE OPPOSITE. I THINK BRITAIN IS MORALLY, FIRMLY, MORALLY RESPONSIBLE FOR US FOR FIFTY YEARS AFTER 1997, THE PERIOD COVERED BY THE JOINT DECLARATION. SO WILL YOU PLEASE TELL AND THE PEOPLE OF HONG KONG, WHAT EXACTLY DO YOU MEAN WHEN YOU BRITAIN IS MORALLY RESPONSIBLE FOR US AFTER 1997, AND HOW MANY THAT RESPONSIBILITY EXTENDS?
US,
SAY
YEARS
/GOVERNOR:
WELL,