in accordance with its duty of co-operation under Article 4. Plainly, it
is most desirable if that can be done in the spirit of mutual co-operation
over the various changes and transitional matters, but in the absence of
such co-operation the British Government still has its duty under the Joint
Declaration to ensure the administration of Hong Kong up until the
transition, and that must include making certain changes in order to ensure
that in the period between 1984 and 1997 there is a move towards the system
as laid down in the treaty.
107.
(Mr Keller)
Would you go along with that, Mr Keller and Dr Slinn?
That
Yes, I think so. For anyone who is familiar with what
has been going on in Hong Kong in the last few years, one can see there is
a change of policy. One can also see where the Chinese Government would
have their own understanding of what functional constituencies meant.
policy seems to have changed, but there is nothing legally binding on
Britain not to have changed its policy. That is outside my legal remit.
(Dr Slinn) I entirely agree with what my colleagues have said, but I
would also readily accept that the Chinese have a particular view of what
they understand by a functional constituency. The only scintilla of
evidence of that is in Annex II of the Joint Declaration paragraph 2,
talks about the limitation of functional sectors and corporate bodies in
relation to the returning of members by functional constituencies.
not suggesting that imposes any obligation on the British Government or the
Hong Kong authorities in respect of the position up to 1997, but it
illustrates, I suppose, the Chinese concept that functional constituencies
impose the process of selection through corporate bodies such as trade
unions, or medical associations.
which
I am
40
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.