2 -
-
The paper said in another short commentary (23.4) that since it was the British who requested to have the airport talks adjourned, they should be the ones who re-opened the talks.
The paper warned that if the British-HK Government yielded to a minority of "anti-China" elements and gave up the infrastructural projects, it would be considered a "lame duck Government" by the rest of the world.
The paper contended that according to the Joint Declaration, China and Britain must work together on all major issues that straddled 1997 and that China would not make any concession on this matter.
In a third commentary (24.4), Ta Kung said that HK people had all along attached importance to maintaining good Sino-British relations and that Sino-British co-operation over HK issues was not a new demand.
The paper alleged that "anti-China" elements who were against HK's reversion to China were trying to use the new airport project to drain the territory's reserves and deprive China of its right to speak. out on affairs that straddled 1997.
Tin Tin (21.4) called on both sides to calm down, go back to the negotiating table and strive for an agreement on the project.
Ming Pao (22.4) noted that the key word in the Joint Declaration was "co-operation". It therefore felt that it would be in line with the Joint Declaration if the HK Government turned down China's airport proposal after studying it. Likewise, China was also free to refuse co-operation if it found HK's plans unacceptable. However, the paper still believed that it would be better for both sides to co-operate with each other.
The Economic Times (20.4) said that in political negotiations,
and both parties must make concessions in order to reach an agreement, neither should go to extremes. Therefore the paper felt it was unwise for China to insist on the right of scrutiny, which was something that the British would never concede to.
The Oriental Daily News (20.4) urged both sides to look at the airport issue from a pragmatic and economic point of view, and not to be bound by their political stance. The paper said both sides should treat the issue as an independent one, and should not link it with such matters as administrative authority.
Sing Pao (19.4) said that the argument over the meaning of "consultation" or "scrutiny" was not important, as HK had already entered the second half of the transition period and "scrutiny" was nothing to be afraid of.
The paper saw Chief Secretary Sir David Ford's reluctance to give a direct reply to HK and Macau Affairs Office director Lu Ping's suggestion for both sides to disclose their proposals as a point well scored by the Chinese side.
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.