SATURDAY, MAY 8, 1993
SO I'D BETTER JUST SAY A WORD OR TWO ABOUT THE LATEST STATE OF PLAY IN OUR LESS THAN AMIABLE SO FAR ARGUMENT SO FAR WITH CHINA. I'LL BE VERY BRIEF. THE ARGUMENT ISN'T ABOUT THE PACE OF DEMOCRATISATION. THE ARGUMENT IS ABOUT THE CREDIBILITY OF DEMOCRATIC INSTITUTIONS.
WE'D AGREED IN THE JOINT DECLARATION, THE PROGRESS THAT HONG KONG SHOULD MAKE TOWARDS DEMOCRACY. WHAT ALAS, ALAS BECAUSE I WOULD HAVE HAD A QUIETER LIFE WERE IT OTHERWISE, WHAT ALAS WE HAD NOT AGREED WERE THE ARRANGEMENTS FOR THE LAST ELECTIONS HELD UNDER BRITISH SOVEREIGNTY FOR THE DISTRICT BOARDS AND MUNICIPAL COUNCILS, THE LOCAL AUTHORITIES IN 1994 AND FOR THE LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ITSELF IN 1995. I THINK THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN CHINA AND THE UNITED KINGDOM HAS BEEN THAT WE ARE DETERMINED THAT THOSE ARRANGEMENTS SHOULD PRODUCE A CREDIBLE, NOT A RUBBER STAMP LEGISLATURE.
WE'RE DETERMINED THAT THOSE ARRANGEMENTS SHOULD BE CLEAN AND STRAIGHTFORWARD AND NOT INTENDED TO PRODUCE A PREORDAINED RESULT. I WON'T PUT THE POINT MORE VIGOROUSLY THAN THAT. THERE IS ANOTHER RELATED ISSUE. WE THINK THAT IF INSTITUTIONAL ARRANGEMENTS TRANSFER THROUGH 1997, IT'S REASONABLE THAT THOSE WHO ARE ELECTED SHOULD ALSO TRANSFER THROUGH 1997.
IN EVERY LEGISLATURE PRETTY WELL AROUND THE WORLD, THERE ARE OBJECTIVE CRITERIA WHICH LEGISLATORS HAVE TO SATISFY IN ORDER TO TAKE UP THEIR POSITIONS IN THE LEGISLATIVE BODY CONCERNED. WHAT CHINA HAS BEEN PROPOSING IS THAT A COMMITTEE SHOULD BE SET UP IN 1996 WHICH WILL ITSELF DETERMINE ON SO FAR AS WE CAN TELL SUBJECTIVE CRITERIA, WHERE THE LEGISLATURES ELECTED IN 1995 CAN TRANSFER THROUGH 1997, TO 1999.
WE HAVE A SUSPICION YOU MAY THINK WE'RE OVERDOING IT THAT THE PURPOSE OF THAT ARRANGEMENT SO FAR AS THE CHINESE ARE CONCERNED, IS TO ENABLE THEM, IF THEY WANT, TO THROW INDIVIDUAL LEGISLATORS OUT OF THE LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL IN 1997 BECAUSE THEY DON'T LIKE THEIR VIEWS.
—
BECAUSE THEY DON'T FOR INSTANCE LIKE WHAT THEY GOT UP TO AFTER TIENANMAN SQUARE IN 1989-90. SO A RELATED ISSUE THAT WE'RE DISCUSSING WITH CHINA IS AND ONE ALWAYS HAS TO DO THESE ARGUMENTS IN TERMS OF METAPHORS, IS
THE THROUGH TRAIN THAT WILL NOT ONLY RUN ON ITS OWN TRACKS THROUGH TO 1999, BUT WILL WE ALSO HELP CARRY THE LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ALTOGETHER INSIDE IT? I PUT FORWARD PROPOSALS ON SOME OF THESE ISSUES LAST AUTUMN. THEY WERE DENOUNCED AND I THINK THAT THERE IS A GOOD DEAL OF FEELING THAT THE CHINESE GREATLY OVERREACTED то THEM.
THE CHINESE SAID THAT THEY WOULD NOT DISCUSS M1 PROPOSALS UNTIL I WITHDREW THEM, WHICH WAS A CURIOUS KAFKAESQUE ACTIVITY WHICH WOULD HAVE GONE BIDDEN TO IMPLEMENT. THEY THEN, AT THE ELEVENTH HOUR, JUST BEFORE WE WERE GOING TO PUBLISH THE LEGISLATION ON MY PROPOSALS, AGREED TO HAVE TALKS.
WE THEN HAD THOSE FRIGHTFUL THINGS IN DIPLOMACY, TALKS ABOUT TALKS,
WHILE THE CHINESE PUSHED OTHER PRECONDITIONS. WE BROKE OFF THOSE TALKS ABOUT TALKS, BECAUSE WE THOUGHT THEY WERE GETTING NOWHERE AND THE CHINESE WERE BEING UNREASONABLE.
/THEY TOOK