reflects what we get. of HK.
a curious views
true??
to a degree
I think this is part of the curious view mentioned
above.
- get out
- 3-
-
wish), enabling the British to reap a windfall on the side. The radicals, however, were carried away by their antics and lost their heads in the excitement. They stirred up all sorts of disputes in the Legislative
Council and even tried to override the Letters Patent and Royal Instructions,
with calls for electing Exco members by the Legco and more elected seats
in the Legco. They gathered forces outside the Establishment and spread
false rumours in a bid to put pressure on the Establishment and project
their own political image. On issues like the use of the Exchange Fund to
rescue locally-financed banks, allowing Australian lawyers to practise
in Hong Kong,, whether or not to send a fact-finding delegation on nuclear plants and the convening of a special Legco meeting, controversies were stirred up and rumours dispersed to undermine public confidence in the Legco and the Hongkong Government. Attempts were even made to create a constitutional crisis by underscoring the usefulness of a few "politicians", thus reducing the Hongkong Government to a "lame duck". Under the present
political framework, one or two politicos is enough to create a sensation. If Hong Kong takes to party politics after 1997 and the legislature becomes
This is the centre of power, can the political situation remain stable? highly questionable.
The Hongkong Government had obviously underestimated the ability of the "outspoken" individuals to get carried away and press for their powers ahead of schedule. If the Hongkong Government fails to keep a firm hand on the territory's political and economic development before 1997, The British will find it hard to hand over a prosperous and stable Hong Kong to Peking. Besides, it will be hard to safeguard Britain's economic
interests in the territory after 1997.
/Why
Page 45Page 46
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.