1
10
ie by dentalian
?
И
On the other side of the controversy, the views were : First, the idea of "resisting communism
through democracy" is not conducive to Hong Kong's
prosperity and stability. Second, the constitutional
reforms should converge with the Basic Law as it is
stipulated in the Joint Declaration that Hong Kong's
future systems are to be determined by the Basic Law.
Third, Britain should assume responsibility for administering Hong Kong during the transition period up to the very last moment, that is, the transfer of government in 1997, and should not shake off her responsibility half-way through. The political system is a matter which goes beyond 1997 and is related to the transfer of government. It should be discussed by the Joint Liaison Group in accordance with the provisions of the Joint Declaration.
Failing to do so would be interfering in China's
sovereignty.
The second debate did not happen entirely out
of the blue. It was in fact a skirmish between the two
sides in anticipation of the Joint Liaison Group's second meeting to be held in Beijing on 25 November. The British did not want to bring up the constitutional issue for discussion at the meeting, but the Chinese favoured putting it on the agenda. In the end, the British agreed to discuss political reforms and a statement issued after the Group's second meeting noted both sides had disucssed the recent changes in Hong Kong's political system. During the discussion, the two sides agreed that to discuss the question of constitutional reforms within the Joint Liaison Group would help to ensure a smooth transition for Hong Kong. It was, therefore, a useful exercise and not one side interfering in the affairs of the other.
......
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.