1984 and obviously things would change but the agreement was generally with
regard to what was in effect in 1984 with reasonable change.
One cannot
say simply that on the stroke of the hour on the 1 July 1997 whatever is
One has to realise the point
there is what they are compelled to accept.
that they made the agreement was 1984.
98.
Dr Slinn?
(Dr Slinn) Just to comment on that, I think it was always a puzzle to
me from when I first saw the text of the agreement exactly how one would
construe the expression "lifestyle" which is not a term of art normally
found in international treaties or indeed at any other time in legal
documents so far as I am aware. I do not really otherwise have anything
substantially to add to what my colleagues have said. I would suggest that
the focus of the dispute, if one could call it that, about the Patten
proposals really refers to his extension of the number and the franchise as
it were within the functional constituencies. I would think that is the
key objection. There was
some questioning earlier when the Foreign Office
representatives were giving evidence about what exactly is the Chinese
objection. I have a quotation here from an article in the Beijing Review
in February which might interest members of the Committee. The writer
refers to the proposals in relation to functional constituencies and says:
In this way functional constituencies will include all the working people
of Hong Kong and the indirect functional constituency election becomes the
direct functional sector election. This obviously violates the Basic Law
and the relevant decisions of the National People's Congress. That for
it is only an article in a Beijing newspaper
express the objection on the PRC's side.
what it is worth
-
-
is to
(Mr Duffy) Chairman, if I may intervene once more on the issue you
raised about the reference in a document adopted in 1984 to the laws
currently in force remaining in force basically unchanged, I think in
34
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.