TNAG-1331-FCO40-1758-Future-of-Hong-Kong-test-of-the-acceptability-of-the-Joint-D-1984 — Page 119

Some Thoughts on the Response to the Consultation

Note by the Justice

Simon Li

It is the view of some critics that the response (or the lack

of it) is due to:

(a)

lack of prior consultation by way of a general

referendum and that the draft Agreement was published

as a 'fait accompli';

(b)

any refusal to accept the Agreement results in a no

agreement;

the fact that the Agreement may not be amended at all;

(c)

(d) that the Basic Law is for PRC only.

The above-mentioned sentiment is particularly set out in the article of the Hong Kong Observers published on 31 October 1984. These are points to be kept in mind though they do not provide all the explanations.

There are other reasons which we have to take into consideration:-

(1)

(2)

(3)

From past experience it is my impression that Hong kong people are accustomed to indirect consultation e.g. through councils, district boards and Kaifong

Associations. Having a referendum is an entirely new concept which sprang up only recently.

Chinese people (constituting over 90% of the local population) are traditionally reserved. They are inclined to leave matters of policy affecting the public at large (rather than to themselves in particular) to the proper authority. They will adapt themselves to the circumstances arising from any reasonable decision. This does not mean that they will keep quiet and be passive and accept anything unreasonable

G

even if they

are prepared to accept something which is inevitable.

They are practical.

For these reasons, I venture to suggest that it is not speculative to conclude that those who choose to remain silent have no objection to the draft Agreement and are prepared to accept it as a fact of life.