TNAG-1329-FCO40-1756-Future-of-Hong-Kong-test-of-the-acceptability-of-the-Joint-D-1984 — Page 56

UNCLASSIFIED

Lyce

бе

MILISE

си

PS/Mr Luc

PA

Grille

13/818 (40)

MAGLIED

Thankyou than 1/

CO Hum

DATE:

13 August 1984

FROM:

MKK040/46

HONG KONG : TEST OF ACCEPTABILITY

UG 1954

Cc:

PS

↑ EM1618

Sir P Cradock

I understand that Mr Luce asked for a summary of the points made by Unofficial Members of the Legislative Council in the debate on the test of acceptability on 8 August.

1.

2. Miss Lydia Dunn moved the motion "that the Council welcomes Government's initiative to test the acceptability of the agreement" and welcomed the proposal to set up the assessment office and monitoring team. She said it would be disastrous if there was any suggestion of the Hong Kong Government seeking to influence opinion, but urged that it should ensure that the widest possible cross section of the community had direct access to the relevant documents and was aware of their right to make their views known. She also suggested that the assessment office consider commissioning independent surveys of opinion. She said she understood what the Secretary of State had said about the impossibility of changing the agreement after publication: but if an overwhelming majority of the people of Hong Kong had reservations about a critical element in it, the Chinese and British governments should be prepared to reconsider. Finally, she noted that "it has been suggested by some" that if there was a serious division of opinion, the Government should consider holding a referendum.

3.

Mr Peter C Wong expressed the view that the assessment office would demonstrate to Parliament that the Hong Kong consultative system could fully and impartially reflect what Hong Kong people think about the arrangements for the future. A referendum should only be considered if all else had failed to produce satisfactory results.

4.

Mr W CL Brown said that how to test acceptability was probably one of the most difficult issues on which to reach agreement. The people of Hong Kong might not be in a position to insist on changes in the agreement, but they always had the option of rejecting it and accepting the possible consequences. The need to have the acceptance of the people of Hong Kong was probably more important than the process of actually getting it.

5.

Mrs Selina Chow said it was all the more important for the people of Hong Kong to speak up on what elements they regarded as absolutely essential to an acceptable agreement now they had been told there would be no chance of amending the draft agreement. She considered it vital that the agreement, and eventually the Basic Law, should state that the government system would continue after 1997 and not be subject to change without the initiation and approval of the people of Hong Kong.

UNCLASSIFIED