Why bother to hold elections in 1995 when the Chinese have said
they will hold new ones in 1997?
- We have a responsibility to see that the 1994 and 1995
elections are held openly, fairly and on time. What China does after 1997 is her responsibility. A smooth transition is very much in China's interests as well as Hong Kong's and Chinese spokesmen have said that is what they will work for.
Why not give negotiations more time by decoupling the 1994 local elections from the 1995 LegCo elections?
- This would not work. The proposals affecting both sets of
elections are inter-related. They need to be considered as a
package in the talks with China and then in this Council. The
conclusion is clear. We have little time left in which to take the first step of securing agreement, if we can, with the
Chinese side.
On 1 June you told us that, if we rejected/radically amended the draft legislation, HMG would have to return to the negotiations with China. Do you stand by that?
- If I recall, what I said was first, that this Council has the ultimate, constitutional responsibility to pass the legislation for the 1994 and 1995 elections; second, that our aim in the
talks with China then as now was to arrive at arrangements that would be open, fair and acceptable to the people of Hong Kong (I stress the word "acceptable"); and third, that LegCo members, in considering whether to amend the draft legislation, would no doubt wish to pay particular regard to the views of their constituents, and the Hong Kong public generally.
I am happy to repeat those points today.
brief.legco.BB
SLN
Page 15Page 16
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.