TNAG-2493-FCO40-3625-Future-of-Hong-Kong-constitutional-development-Chinese-reac-1992 — Page 34

RESTRICTED

We therefore have responsibility to ensure a steady

development. It would not be conducive to Hong Kong's stability

or prosperity to suppress the clear wish of Hong Kong people (CF result of 1991 elections, opinion polls etc) for more democracy. Britain and China both need to be responsive to this wish;

- Governor's proposals take careful account of Basic Law, as

well as Joint Declaration. Build on Hong Kong's existing political system.

3.

The Governor's approach is a breach of earlier Sino-British

agreements on convergence (ie both sides to agree before

proposals are announced).

We

- We accept the need for as much continuity as possible.

have all along said that we would want to consult the Chinese side on arrangements for a 1995 elections. That is why the

Governor announced proposals, not firm decisions. But we have

never accepted that the Chinese side had a veto over

proposals for the 1995 elections;

It takes two to converge. China seems to envisage that Hong Kong will make all the running in making changes to meet

the blue print laid down in the Basic Law. But in light of our

experience in running Hong Kong, we do not believe that the Basic Law is satisfactory in all respects. I made that

clear to the Chinese side as soon as the BL was adopted in 1990.

4.

Britain and China reached an understanding in 1990 on

electoral arrangements for 1995, particularly on the composition

of the Election Committee. It was not therefore necessary to

spell this out in the Basic Law (which anyway will not have

entered into force by 1995).

- The main focus of my exchanges with Foreign Minister Qian in

early 1990 was the question of the number of directly-elected

seats in LegCo. On that we did not reach full agreement. We

accepted 18 as the number of directly-elected seats in 1991.

But we reserved our right to press for more than 20 seats in

RESTRICTED