TNAG-2719-FCO40-3925-Hong-Kong-electoral-provisions-and-arrangements-1993 — Page 182

SECRET

rhetorically how this principle could be met if EC members are not elected fairly and openly. A broadly based EC could in fact be elected both unfairly and not openly. It is also stated that another principle agreed with the Chinese is that the EC's nomination of candidates to LegCo should be simple and open. Again, it is asked is how that principle can be met if the elections within the EC are not themselves fair and open. Fairness is however also not the same as simple. I am not sure how to redraft the last four sentences of paragraph 4 but it does seem to me that the principles relied upon do not really support the proposition that the elections should be fair and open.

5.

I do have some more substantive comments on the other speaking note about the EC fourth sector which I think,is the paper Mr Cox has in mind. With regard to paragraph 4, the Chinese side arguably did have a legitimate expectation that the 1995 converging EC would be similar to the composition and ratio of the EC set out in the Basic Law, Annex 1, paragraph 2, although Annex II, Section I, paragraph 2 distinguishes between the EC for the first LegCo and the EC in Annex I, paragraph 2. The Chinese could not spell out the details of the first EC in the Basic Law because it has to be set up in a pre-1997 electoral law of Hong Kong, but given the principle of convergence and the message from Qian Qichen of

6/8 February 1990 that the EC specified in the Basic Law Annex 1, paragraph 2 must be followed, they clearly had expectations, to some extent well-founded, that the 1995 EC would be constituted similarly. The arguments made in paragraph 4 of the speaking note are valid points and we clearly have no choice but to make them; however the Chinese expectations did and do have some basis.

6.

My other comments on this paper are as follows. I am doubtful about giving the example in the second half of paragraph 5; it is perhaps rather far-fetched. As to paragraph 7, since it is important not to appear to concede that we accept the Chinese view of the exchanges of correspondence, I would change the beignning of the fourth sentence to read "And even on your interpretation...

#

I would very much like this change to be made. Finally two small points occur to me in paragraphs 10 and 11; in paragraph 10 I suggest that "parliament" becomes "legislature", and in paragraph 11 the "on" before "our shared view" is redundant.

Shelagh Brooks (Miss)

Legal Advisers

270 3621 K269

HELEN.Saunders11.8

Shelagh brooks.

SECRET