decisively different. It is based on the common law, on the rule of law,
The whole system is different and the Joint
on an independent judiciary.
Declaration very explicitly says and the Basic Law reflects this
-
that
Hong Kong's way of life and its systems will be preserved with a high
degree of autonomy after 1997. So it is a different business altogether,
but getting further democratisation in the Basic Law for 1997 can only be
done if the Chinese Government are persuaded that it should be done, and
they do need to be persuaded, and trying to bounce them into it effectively
by doing what Mr Rowlands suggests in my judgment would not be successful.
Mr Lawrence
35.
It was a
The OMELCO consensus was not a bouncing process.
very moderate and restrained suggested procedure: 20 directly elected from
1991, 30 directly elected from 1995, 60 directly elected from 1999 and all
to be directly elected not until 2003. In fact, so moderate was it that it
paled into insignificance compared with the recommendations of this very
Committee on 28th June 1989 where we said that full democracy must be
introduced before 1997, and as soon as possible. Now, I understand why the
Government feels that playing it more gently with China may achieve a
better result and I expect common sense indicates that that must be right,
but why do you pitch it so low? In pitching it low you disappoint the
people of Hong Kong, OMELCO and the representatives, and in a bargaining
situation you have got very little lower to go in negotiations with China.
Why do you not pitch it at least as high as the OMELCO consensus which is
reasonable and moderate?
(Mr Maude) You mean for 1991?
36.
And up till 1997?
24
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.