21.7.93
21.7.93
23.7.93
23.7.93
CONFIDENTIAL
- 12.
-
Ta Kung Pao editorial
Mr Patten's criteria for legislators to ride the through train are aimed at helping a few pro-British legislators to straddle 1997 to extend British colonial interests in HK. If one's words and deeds cannot be regarded as objective criteria, then one's oaths should in no way be regarded as such either.
Ngai To-ping in Ken Kei Po
Article 104 of the BL is only an inauguration procedure for public servants. It is like the Governor's swearing in when he assumes office in HK in accordance with the Letters Patent. It does not follow that taking an oath is a requirement for being the Governor. Following the same logic, legislators will not be qualified to ride the through train simply by taking an oath.
Chinese sources quoted by HK Economic Journal
Lan Ching in Ta Kung Pao
•
The British side has ignored the Chinese side's technical difficulties by insisting on discussing the objective criteria for the through train. The Chinese side can do no more than promise to consider suggesting that the NPC provide some guidelines before the 1995 polls.
Even if a set of objective criteria for legislators to ride the through train were in place now, they would still require to pass the SARPC's "ticket inspection" system as people and things might change as time goes by.
23.7.93
Lo Ping in Wen Wei Po
26.7.93
Fu Chung-man in Wen Wei Po
Only the SARPC to be set up in 1996 has the right to set out detailed criteria to confirm legislators elected in 1995. It is a matter concerning a country's sovereign rights.
It is wrong for the Governor to link the rule of law to the objective criteria for riding the through train. Mr Patten is trying to confuse a political question that involves sovereign rights with a legal question.
"
Not confuse our clarify four ir should not be a political question, it is righerly a legal
question.
CONFIDENTIAL
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.