CONFIDENTIAL
Defensive points
(Further developments post-1991?)
8. We will need to consider further developments in light of the Basic Law, which will be promulgated in 1990. Then necessary to take steps to bring composition of LegCo into line with that of future SAR legislature, with view to achieving continuity in 1997.
(Why not press ahead with changes while HMG are responsible for HK?)
g.
Naive to believe that this would help Hong Kong in long term: it would be disastrous to push through changes in the system of representative government which the Chinese would dismantle in 1997. Do not believe this would encourage Hong Kong people to approach the future with confidence.Mis for stability and high degree of continuity across 1997.
(Chinese pressure)
We
10. The decisions were taken by us and Hong Kong Government. made it clear to Chinese throughout that this is a genuine review, and that the outcome will take full account of the views of the Hong Kong people.
(Were the Chinese consulted on the outcome of the review?)
11. No. We have kept the Chinese Government informed of Hong Kong people's thinking on issues dealt with in the review.
(Were the Chinese given advance copies?)
12. As a matter of courtesy, advance copies of the White Paper were handed to the Chinese Government a few days before publication in
Hong Kong.
(Broken promises)
13.
Most grateful to Sir P Blaker for his help in laying this myth
Neither HMG nor HKG at any time made any commitment or
to rest.
CONFIDENTIAL
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.