TNAG-1473-FCO40-2004-Visits-by-MPs-from-the-UK-to-Hong-Kong-1986 — Page 75

GRS 750

CONFIDENTIAL

FM PEKING

Confidential

TO PRIORITY FCO

TELNO 1498

OF 190121Z AUGUST 86

HKK 027.18.

RECEIVE.

INFO PRIORITY HONG KONG

INDE

26 AUG 1986

A326/8

TOP @.DIST ?

(72) MIPT. VISIT OF CLIVE SOLEY MP.

THE FOLLOWING ARE THE MAIN POINTS COVERED

A) ONE COUNTRY TWO SYSTEMS:

KE ELABORATED ON CHINA'S BASIC POLICY TOWARDS HONG KONG, WITH

REFERENCE ALSO TO TAIWAN AND MACAO. HE SAID IT WAS NOW UP TO THE

TWO GOVERNMENTS TO COOPERATE FULLY TO ENSURE A SMOOTH TRANSITION.

B) JLG:

1

HE THOUGH THIS WAS WORKING WELL. SINCE THE ONE COUNTRY TWO

SYSTEMS' POLICY HAD NOT BEEN APPLIED PREVIOUSLY, IT WAS TO BE

EXPECTED THAT PROBALEMS WOULD ARISE. BUT THESE HAD ALL BEEN SOLVED SO FAR. AS IMPLEMENTATION WORK GATHERED MOMENTUM, MORE PROBALEMS WOULD BE ENCOUNTERED, BUT WITH THE RIGHT COOPERATIVE ATTITUDE HE WAS

CONFIDENT THEY COULD BE SOLVED.

C) CONVERGENCE: (IN RESPONSE TO SOLEY'S QUESTION ON PROBLEMS OF

IMPLEMENTATION).

KE SAID THAT THE BASIC LAW WOULD GIVE CONCRETE EXPRESSION'' TO HONG KONG'S SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC SYSTEMS AND A POLITICAL SYSTEM WHICH IS COMPATIBLE WITH THOSE SYSTEMS. BUT IF THE POLITICAL REFORM NOW UNDERWAY IN HONG KONG DID NOT CONVERGE WITH THE BASIC LAW THERE WOULD BE A LOT OF DIFFICULTIES". IN THEORY, THE BL COULD ITSELF STIPULATE THE POST 1997 STRUCTURE: BUT IT MUST TAKE INTO ACCOUNT THE CONTINUITY OF THE HONG KONG GOVERNMENT. BOTH

SIDES MUST BE CAUTIOUS.

D) BASIC LAW:

KE STRESSED THE CONSULTATIVE PROCESS AND EMPHASISED THAT THERE WERE EFFECTIVE CHANNELS FOR THE PEOPLE OF HONG KONG TO MAKE THE IR

VIEWS KNOWN. CHINA WANTED TO SATISFY THE NEEDS AND ASPIRATIONS

OF THE PEOPLE OF HONG KONG'' THROUGH THE BASIC LAW. AGAIN WITH

FULL COOPERATION BETWEEN BOTH SIDES ALL PROBLEMS COULD BE SOLVED.

E) DIRECT ELECTIONS (IN RESPONSE TO SOLEY, WHO SAID HE UNDERSTOOD

WHY CHINA WOULD NOT WANT A FOLITICAL SYSTEM IN HONG KONG

**CONTRADICTORY TO THE REST OF THE COUNTRY (SIC) ).

་

KE SAID THAT SOME PEOPLE IN HONG KONG WERE ARGUING PUBLICLY IN SUPPORT BUT OTHER PEOPLE HAD DIFFERENT VIEWS. IT HAD BEEN CLAIMED

THAT CHINA WAS OPPOSED TO DIRECT ELECTIONS. THIS WAS NOT SO. CHINA

HAD NO PRE-CONCEIVED IDEAS. THE JOINT DECLARATION REFERS TO

1

ELECTIONS'' BUT DOES NOT SPECIFY. THE BASIC LAW MUST TAKE ACCOUNT OF

Confidential

73

Page 75Page 76