XN000022-1991-09-05 — Page 8

7

THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 5,

1991

HONO

ru18

HONG

Q: YOU MENTION INCREASING CONTACT WITH CHINA IS GOOD FOR KONG ON THE ONE HAND, BUT THERE ARE ALSO FEARS IN HONG KONG THAT MIGHT GIVE THE CHINESE MORE OPPORTUNITIES TO GET INVOLVED WITH KONG'S INTERNAL MATTERS BETWEEN NOW AND UNTIL THE HANDOVER, I.K. SOME KIND OF AN UNOFFICIAL JOINT ADMINISTRATION

PRIME

-

- J

POINT

MINISTER: NO, I DON'T THINK

I MEAN I MADE THE QUITR SPECIFICALLY IN THE SPEECH THAT I MADE WHEN WE SIGNED THE MEMORANDUM, WHEN THE CHINESE GOVERNMENT WERE THERE THAT THERE 19 NO QUESTION OF MATTERS LIKE A CONDOMINIUM THIS SIDE OF 1997. THAT POINT WAS CLEARLY MADE IN THE REPORTS. IT WAS OF COURSE ORIGINALLY IN THE JOINT DECLARATION, THAT HAS BEEN REAFFIRMED, AND I SAID THAT NOT HIDDEN AWAY IN A CORNER BUT ACTUALLY THERE WITH THE CHINESE LEADERS BESIDE ME. BUT THERE ARE AREAS WHERE DECISIONS TAKEN STRADDLE 1997 AND ARE VERY IMPORTANT AND IT IS WISE

AS I THINK PEOPLE REGARD IT WISE TO CONSULT ON SOME OF THOSE ISSUES. THAT WAS ALWAYS FORESEEN IN THE JOINT DECLARATION AND THAT IS WHAT WE ARE DOING. IT IS IN THE INTERESTS OF HONG KONG TO MAKE SURE THERE IS TO GO BACK TO THE EARLIER QUESTION - THAT STABILITY. AND THAT STABILITY EVERYTHING DOESN'T SUDDENLY STOP AND START AGAIN IN 1997, MANY THINGS STRADDLE 1997 AND WE MUST ENSURE THAT STABILITY IS GENUINE AND REAL AND THAT MEANS A DEGREE OF CONSULTATION.

IT DOESN'T MEAN THAT THE RESPONSIBILITIES HAVE MOVED AWAY, IT MEANS ONE CONSULTS IN A PRACTICAL AND PRAGMATIC WAY.

Q: CAN YOU GIVE A GUARANTEE THAT THIS IS

PRIME MINISTER: IS THIS YOUR THIRD QUESTION OR YOUR FOURTH? THINK WE HAD BETTER SEE SOME OTHERS FIRST.

Q:

CAN YOU EXPLAIN WHY IT IS YOU SEEM PREPARED TO STAND UP CHINA ON HUMAN RIGHTS BUT YOU ARE NOT PREPARED TO STAND UP TO THEM DEMOCRACY FOR HONG KONG? AND CAN YOU, OR CAN YOU NOT, RESTATE PREVIOUS UK POLICY, WHICH IS TO GO TO PEKING AFTER THESE ELECTIONS NEGOTIATE AN INCREASE FROM 20 SEATS, UPWARDS OF 20 SEATS FOR 1995?

I

TO

ON

THE TO

PRIME MINISTER: WELL, THE PREMISE OF YOUR QUESTION 19 WRONG PROVOCATIVE AND WRONG. WHEN THE AGREEMENT WITH CHINA WAS REACHED OVER 18 SEATS, YOU CAN'T SIT THERE IN YOUR SEAT AND SAY CHINA WAS OFFERING 18 SEATS FOR DIRECT ELECTIONS, THAT WAS A MATTER THAT WE NEGOTIATED WITH CHINA AND WE GOT A GOOD DEAL BETTER NEGOTIATION THAN THE CHINESE ORIGINALLY EXPECTED OR THAT MOST PEOPLE EXPECTED HERE. AND SO THERE WAS NO QUESTION OF US NOT IN THE EMOTIVE TERMS YOU PUT IT - STANDING UP TO CHINA ON THAT ISSUE. THE PEOPLE WE ARE STANDING UP FOR ARE THE PEOPLE OF HONG KONG, IN A WAY THAT IS RIGHT FOR HONG KONG AND IS I HAVE SUSTAINABLE FOR HONG KONG, AND WE ARE PERFECTLY PREPARED, AS SAID ON A NUMBER OF OCCASIONS ALREADY IN THIS PRESS CONFERENCE,

HAVE HAD THE ELECTIONS THIS YEAR WE WILL DISCUSS WITH THE WE WHO WERE ELECTED AND REVIEW THE SITUATION AND SEE WHAT HAPPENED AND HAS MAKE OUR

THAT JUDGEMENTS THERE, AND NOTHING IN OUR POLICY UPON CHANGED.

AFTER

PEOPLE

/0: YOU'VE MADE

+