FRIDAY, NOVEMBER 5, 1993
-
GOVERNOR:
IT SEEMS TO ME THAT PUBLIC SUPPORT HAS HELD UP REMARKABLY STRONGLY OVER THE LAST 15 OR 16 MONTHS. IT HAS HELD UP REMARKABLY STRONGLY EVEN WHEN IT HAS BEEN ASSAULTED BY SOME PRETTY SALTY RHETORIC FROM TIME TO TIME. AND I AM SURE THAT IS A MATTER WHICH HAS BEEN OBSERVED, WHETHER WITH OR WITHOUT SATISFACTION, IS FOR THEM TO ANSWER, BY THE NEW CHINA NEWS AGENCY AND THE HONG KONG AND MACAU AFFAIRS OFFICE, AS WELL AS BY YOURSELVES.
QUESTION: PEKING
GOVERNOR,
HERE, HAVE
SINCE THE LAST ROUND OF TALKS CONCLUDED THE CHINESE INDICATED THROUGH ANY OF THE CHANNELS OPEN TO THEM A GREATER FLEXIBILITY AND CHANGE POSITION AS IT WAS AT THE CLOSE OF THE LAST FORMAL ROUND?
IN
FROM
THE
GOVERNOR :
WE HAVE NOT HAD ANY SUBSTANTIVE MESSAGE SINCE THE END OF THE LAST ROUND WHICH HAS CHANGED THE RESPECTIVE POSITIONS OF THE TWO SIDES SINCE THE LAST ROUND. THERE HAVE BEEN CONTACTS, AS THERE ARE, BETWEEN ROUNDS OF TALKS, BUT THE CONTACTS HAVE BEEN BY AND LARGE ABOUT MATTERS THAT WE DISCUSSED IN THE 15TH ROUND AND IN THE PREVIOUS ROUNDS, NOT MAJOR ADDITIONS TO WHAT WAS DISCUSSED IN THE 15TH ROUND AND PREVIOUS ROUNDS.
QUESTION: ACTIVITIES?
YOU HAVE SET 1995 AS THE DEADLINE
SUBVERSIVE
GOVERNOR:
WELL, I AM NOT SURE ENTIRELY WHAT IS MEANT BY THAT. HAVE SEEN SOME REFERENCES TO THINGS WHICH I THINK MEMBERS OF THE PWC?
-
I
TO
HAVE SAID THIS WEEK, WHICH I HAVE FOUND A BIT DIFFICULT UNDERSTAND. BUT THE CORRECT PLACE TO TALK ABOUT OBJECTIVE CRITERIA IS IN THE TALKS. I IMAGINE THAT OBJECTIVE CRITERIA WOULD APPLY TO WHAT HAPPENED FROM THE CHANGE OF SOVEREIGNTY IN HONG KONG, SINCE PEOPLE, AS LEGISLATORS, WOULD BE TAKING THE USUAL OATHS, WHICH ARE FINE BY US, IN 1995 TO TAKE THEM THROUGH TO 1997, BUT THAT PRECISE POINT THAT YOU HAVE MADE HAS NOT YET COME UP IN THE DISCUSSIONS. TWO MORE.
GOVERNOR,
THESE TALKS ARE SUPPOSED TO BE ABOUT
QUESTION: ARRANGEMENTS.
YES.
GOVERNOR:
QUESTION:
BUT THE THROUGH-TRAIN IS NOT EXACTLY AN ARRANGEMENT. CORRECT, ME IF I AM WRONG BUT IT IS NOT ACTUALLY IN YOUR PROPOSALS FOR THE 1994/95 ELECTIONS. SO AREN'T THESE REALLY SEPARATE ISSUES AND WOULD IT NOT BE POSSIBLE TO CONCLUDE TALKS ABOUT ARRANGEMENTS AND THEN PERHAPS CONTINUE TO TALK ABOUT THE THROUGH-TRAIN? IS THIS NOT A WAY TO ACHIEVE THOSE ARRANGEMENTS?
GOVERNOR:
-
IT WOULD BE POSSIBLE BUT NOT DESIRABLE. I THINK THAT IF WE WERE TO CONCLUDE AN AGREEMENT - AND I WOULD LIKE то SEE AN AGREEMENT
ΤΟ ABOUT THE 1994/95 ELECTIONS BUT WE WERE NOT TO BE ABLE TELL YOU EXACTLY WHAT THE ARRANGEMENTS WERE ABOUT PEOPLE TRAVELLING ON THE CARRIAGES THAT WE HAVE BUILT TOGETHER, YOU WOULD BE RIGHTLY CRITICAL. A POINT THAT I HAVE MADE WHICH I WOULD HAVE THOUGHT IS PRETTY WELL BEYOND DISPUTE IS THAT IT DOES NOT MAKE VERY MUCH SENSE TO HAVE AGREEMENT ON THE ELECTORAL ARRANGEMENT IF THERE IS NOT ALSO AN AGREEMENT ABOUT HOW THOSE ARRANGEMENTS CAN TRANSPORT LEGISLATORS THROUGH THE CHANGE IN SOVEREIGNTY. SO I THINK THAT THE TWO MATTERS ARE IN PRACTICE RELATED, EVEN IF YOU ARE RIGHT
SAYING THAT THEORETICALLY YOU COULD SEPARATE THEM OUT.
IN
/QUESTION:
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.