CONFIDENTIAL
to be that it is the wrong model (though the categories and ratios are very similar to those of the election committee described in the Basic Law). The size of the committee is only half that of the Election Committee (400 versus 800) which would perhaps make it more easy to pack.
Option C again does not converge with the Basic Law, either in numbers or in composition.
4.
5. Option D is again deliberately modelled to some extent on the Basic Law although it drops the concept of representation through some form of professional or other association in favour of a more direct form of election, for most but not all categories.
6.
The main drawbacks of option A are at present that it relies too much on the existing functional constituencies (thus possibly contravening proposition two on avoidance of duplication); that by relying on professional associations etc it is difficult to meet either the Governor's criterion that the members of the committee should themselves be elected or proposition three that the election committee should be as representative as possible; and finally, from the Chinese point of view, it does not include delegates to the NPC or CPPCC, categories which they would presumably be keen to include. The Annex to the Basic Law says that the Election Committee should be composed, in part, of Hong Kong Deputies to the National People's Congress and representatives of Hong Kong members of the National Committee of the Chinese People's Political Consultative Conference. I take that to mean all the NPC delegates (at present I believe 18, though the present delegates are arguing for more up to 30 so that they might be in the position to introduce a motion to the NPC) and some, but not all, of the CPPCC delegates (there were 67 appointed to the last CPPCC). The Chinese would no doubt argue that the NPC delegates had been properly elected (this is happening at the moment in the Guangdong Provincial People's Congress), but would find it more difficult to argue that for the more arcane process of selection for the CPPCC. I think the omission of religious groups is likely to be taken less seriously by the Chinese, but would provide them with an arguing point.
7. It is difficult to imagine a procedure that would not be complicated and would still meet the main requirements laid out in the Basic Law, the 1990 exchange, and the Governor's speech. Perhaps some combination of Option D (with the first three categories being based on "occupational groups" and the fourth going some way to meet the Chinese definition of that group) with Option A might offer a way forward. It seems to me that too close an adherence to professional bodies (as no doubt envisaged by but never specifically stated by the Chinese in the Basic Law) goes against the proposition agreed in the exchanges that the committee should be as representative as possible. Labour for example seems
CONFIDENTIAL
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.