TNAG-2712-FCO40-3918-Parliamentary-relations-draft-White-Paper-on-Representative--1993 — Page 67

constituencies, even though the Chinese side still maintained their refusal to discuss objective criteria for the through train. The details of the revised proposals are set out in Part III of this White Paper. Part III also explains why the

Chinese proposals on these issues were unacceptable. During these Rounds, the Chinese side also set out their position on

three other issues:

statememt26.8/BRIEFS/NJH

On the through train, they indicated that the British

side would have to ensure that the 1995 election

arrangements conformed fully with the Chinese side's

interpretation of the Basic Law before criteria for the

through train could be discussed. The British side

made clear that, given the fundamental importance of

criteria for the through train, discussion of this must proceed in parallel with that of other issues.

On the stipulation in the Basic Law that no more than

20% of the legislature in 1997 may hold foreign

nationality or right of abode, it would be for the

British side to devise a mechanism to ensure that the

Legislative Council elected in 1995 conformed to this

requirement. The British side responded that it would

not be appropriate to discriminate in this way against

British and other nationals in elections held under

British administration in 1995. In any case, the nationality status of individual legislators could

change between 1995 and 1997.

On the voting method in geographical constituencies,

the nine constituencies used in the 1991 elections

should remain unchanged. (In 1991, each constituency

returned two members; each voter had two votes).

1995, the Chinese side proposed the "multi-seat,

single-vote" system, whereby the 20 directly-elected

For

22