TNAG-1900-FCO40-2699-Future-of-Hong-Kong-briefing-1989 — Page 78

MELAAS (2)

CONFIDENTIAL

4.

Mr Lee also accused HMG and the Hong Kong Government of having

manipulated the outcome of the 1987 review of representative

government in an attempt to show that public opinion on the timing

of direct elections was still divided and that it would therefore be

right to delay the next major constitutional change until 1991. He claimed that a questionnaire used in the public opinion survey conducted by AGB McNair on behalf of the Hong Kong Government had been so long and complicated as obscure the issues. Underlying all these specific accusations was the belief that Britain had bowed to

Chinese pressure.

5. We have always maintained that our purpose is to put in place democratic structures that are likely to endure after 1997, without

being immediately overturned. The overriding need is is to secure a foundation for the future stability and prosperity of Hong Kong.

This cannot be founded on confrontation between Britain and China.

6. In commenting on Mr Lee's accusations of "broken promises" we

have taken the following line :

None of the statements by HMG in 1984/85 went beyond stating the general intention of promoting further development towards representative government, again reviewing the question of direct elections in 1987, and building up a firmly based democratic administration by 1997.

The 1984 White Paper made no commitment to introduce direct

elections in 1988. It merely noted the state of opinion at the time. The White Paper undertook to review the position in 1987: that undertaking was carried out in full.

We informed Chinese Government as a courtesy shortly before

publication of the 1988 White Paper. But decisions on the outcome

of the 1987/88 review were ours alone. The key factors in reaching those decisions were the views of the people of Hong Kong and the interests of Hong Kong.

CONFIDENTIAL