XN000022-1993-07-15 — Page 8

Page &

7

THURSDAY, JULY 15, 1993

GOVERNOR: I HAVE SAID FROM THE OUTSET, THOUGH IT WOULD BE TEMPTING FOR ME TO GO BEYOND IT, I HAVE SAID FROM THE OUTSET THAT I DON'T THINK IT WOULD HELP THE SUCCESSFUL CONCLUSION OF THE TALKS TO SET OUT IN DETAIL EXACTLY WHAT IS HAPPENING AT EVERY STAGE OF THE NEGOTIATIONS. I HAVEN'T ABANDONED THE PRINCIPLES WHICH I ENUNCIATED EARLIER, NOR HAS THE BRITISH GOVERNMENT, NOR, OF COURSE, HAVE THOSE WHO ARE NEGOTIATING IN THE NAME OF THE BRITISH GOVERNMENT. THERE HAVE BEEN A NUMBER OF

BUT WE

WHICH BEAR

INEVITABLE WERE TOLD ABANDONED, TALKS ARE LAST

THE

NONA

THE LIFE HAS

AND THE

RUMOURS ABOUT WHAT MAY OR MAY NOT BE HAPPENING, MOST OF LITTLE RELATIONSHIP TO THE TRUTH. I GUESS THAT IS AN CONSEQUENCE OF HAVING TO NEGOTIATE IN CONFIDENCE. BEFORE THESE TALKS THAT TALKS COULD ONLY TAKE PLACE IF WE BURIED, INCINERATED OUR PROPOSALS. WE HAVEN'T DONE SO; TAKING PLACE. ALL SORTS OF OTHER THINGS HAVE BEEN SAID IN YEAR ABOUT WHAT MAY OR MAY NOT HAPPEN UNLESS WE DID WHATEVER WANTED, OR WHATEVER SENIOR CHINESE OFFICIALS WANTED; AND TURNED OUT, HAPPILY, TO BE RATHER DIFFERENT FROM THOSE DIRE CATASTROPHIC PREDICTIONS. SO I THINK THAT I CAN BEST RESPOND TO HONOURABLE MEMBER BY SAYING THAT WE ARE PREPARED, IN GOOD FAITH, ΤΟ LOOK AT ALTERNATIVE WAYS OF SECURING THE PRINCIPLES AND OBJECTIVES WHICH I MENTIONED EARLIER. WE ARE PREPARED TO REGARD WHAT I SAID LAST AUTUMN AS PROPOSALS, RATHER THAN ARGUMENTS FIXED IN CONCRETE. BUT AT THE END OF THE DAY, WE WILL BE JUDGED BY THIS CLEAR TEST. HAVE YOU PUT FORWARD PROPOSALS WHICH MAKE THE LIMITED DEMOCRATIC STEP WHICH JONG KONG IS TAKING IN 1995 CREDIBLE OR NOT? A LOT OF HONOURABLE MEMBERS IN THIS CHAMBER WOULD LIKE THE ARGUMENT TO BE ABOUT AN EXTENSION OF DEMOCRACY FOR HONG KONG. I UNDERSTAND THAT. IT'S NOT .BOUT AN EXTENSION OF DEMOCRACY FOR HONG KONG, IT'S ABOUT WHETHER AGREED PROGRESS TOWARDS GREATER DEMOCRACY IS TO BE CREDIBLE OR IS ΤΟ BF INCREDIBLE, THAT'S WHAT IT'S ABOUT. AND I AM DETERMINED THAT IT HOULD BE CREDIBLE, BECAUSE IF IT IS NOT CREDIBLE, THERE IS NO POINT N TAKING THAT STEP.

1

F.

AN

MR SZETO WAH: MR GOVERNOR, TODAY IN THE NEWSPAPER THERE WAS AN ARTICLE SAYING THAT A CERTAIN HONG KONG PERSON WHO WAS GOING TO BEIJING TO IPATE IN A MEETING OF THE WORKING PANEL OF THE PREPARATORY COMMITTEE AND THAT PARTICULAR PERSON NAMED SEVERAL, ACTUALLY NAMED

NDIVIDUAL LEGISLATIVE COUNCILLOR, SAYING THAT HE WOULD NOT BE ELIGIBLE FOR A "THROUGH TRAIN", AND THAT PERSON ALSO LISTED THE + BASONS WHY THESE COUNCILLORS WILL NOT BE ABLE TO RIDE THE "THROUGH TRAIN" IF WHAT HE SAID WAS TO BE THE CRITERIA THAT WOULD BE AGREED BY BOTH THE SINO-BRITISH GOVERNMENTS, DO YOU THINK THAT THAT CRITERIA IS ACCEPTABLE?

GOVERNOR: OF COURSE NOT. IF THAT IS THE STANDARD OF THE ADVICE WHICH THAT PARTICULAR DISTINGUISHED INDIVIDUAL IS GIVING TO THE GOVERNMENT IN CHINA, THEN I DON'T THINK THEY WILL BE AS WELL INFORMED AS THEY DESERVE то BE.

THE TRUTH OF THE MATTER IS, THAT WITHOUT GETTING INVOLVED IN THE NAMING OF INDIVIDUALS, OBJECTIVE MEANS OBJECTIVE, AND IT DOESN'T MEAN ASKING WHETHER YOU LIKE, WHAT OPINIONS PEOPLE HAD FOUR OR FIVE YEARS' AGO, OR HOW MANY BUTTONS THEY HAVE ON THEIR

CUFF, OR WHAT THEIR ASTROLOGICAL SIGN IS. THAT CANNOT CONCEIVABLY BE A WAY ок MAKING DEMOCRATIC ARRANGEMENTS CREDIBLE FOR THIS COMMUNITY. I DON'T WANT THE ARGUMENT TO BE ABOUT INDIVIDUALS, THOUGH I AM SURE OTHERS WILL TRY TO SEE IT IN THAT SENSE. I THINK THAT IT TS INCONCEIVABLE THAT IN A COMMUNITY WHICH BELIEVES IN THE RULE OF LAW, YOU CAN APPLY, SUBJECTIVELY, RULES TO SOME WHICH DON'T APPLY TO THE OTHERS, AND WHICH HAVE EVERYTHING TO DO WITH OPINION AND SIMILAR TESTS RATHER THAN ANYTHING OBJECTIVE. SO IF WE'RE CONCERNED ABOUT THE RULE OF LAW, WE SHOULD BE CONCERNED ABOUT OBJECTIVE CRITERIA FOR MEMBERS OF THIS LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL; AND IF WE ARE NOT TO APPLY THOSE CRITERIA, HEAVEN HELP THE RULE OF LAW IN HONG KONG.

THEN

/MR RONALD