XN000022-1987-05-30 — Page 18

to

A: A NUMBER OF VIEWS HAVE BEEN PUT FORWARD BY A LARGE NUMBER OF DIFFERENT PEOPLE. IN THE LONG TERM, THAT IS, IN THE DRAFTING OF THE BASIC LAW AND DEFINING OF THE SITUATION OF POST-1997, IT SEEMS ABSOLUTELY CLEAR THAT THE VIEWS OF CHINESE LEADERS WILL BE OF GREAT IMPORTANCE. BECAUSE THE BASIC LAW IS TO BE PASSED BY

BUT, ON THE VIEWS PUT FORWARD THE NATIONAL PEOPLE'S CONGRESS. BUT BY ANYBODY, I WOULD CAUTION PEOPLE TO READ VERY CAREFULLY WHAT THOSE VIEWS ARE. THEY ARE NOT ALWAYS AS SIMPLE OR ONE-WAY AS THE INTERPRETATIONS WOULD SOMETIMES PUT THEM. SO FAR AS THE GREEN PAPER EXERCISE IS CONCERNED, A LARGE NUMBER OF DIFFERENT PEOPLE ARE PUTTING FORWARD VIEWS BUT IT IS FOR THE PEOPLE OF HONG KONG TO DECIDE THEMSELVES WHAT VIEWS THEY THINK THEY WANT TO PUT TO THE GOVERNMENT. AND I AM SURE THEY ARE QUITE CAPABLE OF DOING THAT THEMSELVES.

Q: MATTHEW LEUNG (HONG KONG STANDARD), THE GREEN PAPER MENTIONED THAT THE NEW ELECTORAL COLLEGE CONCEPT FOR LONG-TERM DISCUSSION AND SINCE IT IS MENTIONED IN CHAPTER 1 OF THE GREEN PAPER THAT THE PURPOSE OF THE 1987 REVIEW IS TO CONSIDER WHETHER THE SYSTEM OF REPRESENTATIVE GOVERNMENT IN HONG KONG SHOULD BE FURTHER DEVELOPED IN 1988 AND IN WHAT MANNER SO MY QUESTIONS ARE WHY THIS IDEA AMONG COUPLES OF OTHERS FOR LONGER TERM DEVELOPMENT SUGGESTED BY OTHER PEOPLE HAVE BEEN SELECTIVELY LISTED IN THE GREEN PAPER. MY SECOND QUESTION IS, IS IT THE KIND OF RECOMMENDATION OR DIRECTION PUT FORWARD BY THE ADMINISTRATION?

IT IS

A: LET ME TAKE THE SECOND PART FIRST. THE ANSWER IS NO. PUT FORWARD AS SOMETHING TO FLOAT FOR POSSIBLE DISCUSSION, BUT IT IS NOT THOUGHT BY THE ADMINISTRATION THAT THIS IS AN OPTION WHICH SHOULD BE TAKEN UP IN 1988. THAT IS VERY LARGELY BECAUSE IT IS A RELATIVELY NEW IDEA IN THE COMMUNITY AND IF IT WAS GOING TO BE USED IT REQUIRES A GREAT DEAL MORE THOUGHT IN WORKING OUT HOW IT WOULD APPLY IN DETAIL. SO IT IS PUT FORWARD AS ONE OF THE IDEAS WHICH HAS BEEN CIRCULATING IN THE COMMUNITY, TO SEE AT THIS STAGE WHETHER PUBLIC DISCUSSION WOULD THRASH THIS IDEA OUT OR WOULD TREAT IT AS SOMETHING WHICH THE PUBLIC WOULD NOT WANT TO PURSUE FOR THE LONGER TERM FUTURE BUT NOT FOR 1988.

Q: STEVE VINE (OBSERVER), SIR DAVID, THE CHINESE GOVERNMENT SEEMS TO HAVE MADE IT QUITE CLEAR ITS OWN VIEW ON THE INTERPRETATION OF THE JOINT DECLARATION IN THAT THEY DON'T THINK IT IS FOR THIS ADMINISTRATION TO MAKE SUBSTANTIAL CHANGES DURING THE INTERIM PERIOD. DO YOU THINK THE BRITISH GOVERNMENT, WHICH WAS THE OTHER SIGNATORY OF THE DECLARATION SHOULD MAKE CLEAR ITS VIEW ON ITS INTERPRETATION OF THAT PART OF THE AGREEMENT?

/A:

I AM