XN000022-1992-11-27 — Page 7

5-

FRIDAY, NOVEMBER 27, 1992

[ WOULD POINT OUT IN PARTICULAR THE IMPACT WHICH ENDING OR QUALIFYING MFN STATUS WOULD HAVE FOR OUR GROWTH IN HONG KONG AND FOR JOBS IN HONG KONG, I DON'T WANT PEOPLE IN HONG KONG TO SUFFER BECAUSE OF THE POLITICAL ARGUMENTS BETWEEN OTHERS AND THAT IS A POINT THAT I WILL PUT EXTREMELY VIGOROUSLY. I WOULD TAKE WITH ME BUSINESS LEADERS AND OTHER COMMUNITY LEADERS FROM HONG KONG WHO CAN PUT ALL THESE ARGUMENTS FROM THEIR OWN PERSONAL EXPERIENCES.

QUESTION: HEAR

GOVERNOR, I WAS NOT ABLE TO ATTEND THE LUNCHEON AND TO YOUR SPEECH THERE, BUT AS I UNDERSTAND IT, THE PROPOSALS MADE BY THE GOVERNOR TOWARDS THE DEMOCRATISATION OF HONG KONG,

UNDERSTAND THAT CHINA NOW IS VERY ANGRY OVER YOUR PROPOSALS. NOW, WHAT I WOULD LIKE TO KNOW FROM YOU AS THE GOVERNOR, WHY IS IT THAT THE FORMER GOVERNOR, YOUR PREDECESSOR, NEVER SAID ANYTHING TO THAT EFFECT, AND WHY IS IT THAT GOVERNOR PATTEN, YOU YOURSELF, HAVE STARTED TO ASSERT THE POLICY? I WOULD LIKE TO KNOW WHAT MAY BE THE INTENTIONS BEHIND THAT PROPOSAL? AND ANOTHER POINT: NOW IF YOU ANGER CHINA, IF CHINA BECOMES SO MAD OVER THE PROPOSALS, WHAT MAY BECOME OF THE STABILITY OF HONG HONG. WHAT MAY BECOME OF THE FUTURE OF HONG KONG, OR DON'T YOU THINK THAT THAT MAY HAVE A NEGATIVE EFFECT?

GOVERNOR:

FIRST OF ALL, IT IS OF COURSE A POINT WHICH I HAVE ADDRESSED IN INNUMERABLE SPERCHES AND YOU'LL EXCUSE ME IF I DON'T GO INTO THE DETAILS OF ALL THE ARGUMENTS IN AN ANSWER TO YOUR INTERESTING · QUESTION, ARRANGEMENTS HAD NOT BEEN AGREED FOR THE LAST ELECTIONS BEFORE THE TRANSFER AND THE RESUMPTION OF CHINESE SOVEREIGNTY IN 1997. THE ARRANGEMENTS HAVE NOT BEEN MADE FOR THOSE ELECTIONS AND I WAS OBLIGED TO PUT FORWARD PROPOSALS FOR THOSE ELECTIONS MYSELF THE EXISTING SOVEREIGN POWER, DRITAIN HAD PRESSED FOR THREE YEARS FOR AN INCREASE IN THE NUMBER OF DIRECTLY ELECTED SEATS IN 1995. CHINA HAD SAID DURING THAT PERIOD THAT IT DID NOT WISH TO INCREASE THE NUMBER OF DIRECTLY ELECTED SEATS BECAUSE THAT WOULD INVOLVE A CHANGE IN THE BASIC LAW.

I THEREFORE PROPOSED A DIFFERENT APPROACHI, AN APPROACH WHICH IN MANY PARTICULARS FELL WELL SHORT OF WHAT MANY PEOPLE IN HONG KONG HAD BEEN ARGUING FOR, AND THAT IS WHAT THE DEBATE IS ABOUT AT PRESENT. THEY'RE NODEST PROPOSALS, WHICH I REPEAT, FELL WELL SHORT OF WHAT MANY PEOPLE IN HONG KONG HAD URGED ME TO DO.

I AM PERFECTLY HAPPY, AS I HAVE SAID ON A NUMBER OF OCCASIONS, TO CONSIDER OTHER PROPOSALS. OTHER PROPOSALS ARE STARTING TO COME FORWARD, FOR EXAMPLE WITHIN THE LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL. THE LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ITSELF WILL HAVE TO MAKE THE FINAL DECISION IN THE FIRST MONTHS OF NEXT YEAR, THAT'S PERFECTLY CLEAR FROM THE EXISTING CONSTITUTIONAL ARRANGEMENTS. IT WOULD BE FQUALLY CLEAR UNDER THE BASIC LAW AFTER 1997. THE ONLY POINT 1 WILL ADD TO THAT IS THIS: WHAT WE ARE ATTEMPTING TO TURN INTO REALITY IS THE HISTORIC CONCEPT OF ONE COUNTRY, TWO SYSTENS. AS I SAID AT LUNCH, IT'S TWO SYSTEMS NOT ONE-AND-A-HALF SYSTEMS, OR ONE-AND-A-QUARTER SYSTEMS. I THINK HAVE TO STAND UP FOR OUR SYSTEN BEFORE 1997 IN ORDER TO ENSURE THAT IT EXISTS AFTER 1997.

WE

/QUESTION: I'M