4
Question: (on China's reaction to PM's remarks)
Governor: Well of course, the sort of thing that is said by some of those united front newspapers in Hong Kong doesn't surprise anybody. That's what you expect them to say. The notion that it's inappropriate for the Prime Minister to talk about how best one can safeguard the way of life in Hong Kong, how best one can honour the commitments and obligations set out in the Joint Declaration, the notion that it's inappropriate for the British Prime Minister to discuss those things is one that could only feature in a united front editorial. Of course, everybody recognises that the most effective way in which Chinese officials could meet what they say is their aim of boosting confidence in Hong Kong would be by making it absolutely clear that they stand by the promises that have been made to Hong Kong on both human rights and their safeguarding, and as well on the development of representative institutions, the development of democracy on Hong Kong. It's difficult to see how commitments on those matters can be matched by what's been said by Chinese officials about dismantling the Legislative Council. Does one dismantle the Legislative Council in order to have a fairer electoral system? And it's difficult to match those promises with what's been said about gutting, filleting the Bill of Rights, and about reporting obligations under the international covenants. So obviously we would very much like to see positive responses by Chinese officials on those matters. And I'm sure those positive responses, were they to come, would meet with overwhelming relief and overwhelming enthusiasm here in Hong Kong. I think those matters are exceptionally important. And I don't doubt that it would take some effort of will and some political effort to reverse positions that have been taken publicly. But I'm equally no doubt that it would be hugely in Hong Kong's interest were that to happen.
Question: How about your role in the hand-over ceremony...?
Governor: Shiny. Can I just make this point as vigorously as I have made it before, and I don't want to answer any more questions about it. It is a ridiculous issue for anybody to harp on. Who represents the British Government at the hand-over in 1997 is entirely a matter for the British Government. It has nothing to do with Chinese officials, It has nothing to do with NCNA sources, it has nothing to do with those who write editorials and comments for united front newspapers. It is a matter for the British Government and it is impertinent for anybody to suggest otherwise. Is that now reasonably clear? Have we got it absolutely plain?
Question: Is it true that in your closed door and background briefings for the British press, you've said... back to British politics?