WHY WAS LEGCO VOTING METHOD THE MAKE-OR-BREAK ISSUE?
We made it clear to the Chinese side early on, that an interim agreement would only be of practical use to us if it included all the urgent Legco issues as well, including the LegCo voting method. That would gain a little more time to continue discussing the more complicated issues.
The single-seat, single-vote system for LegCo is widely favoured in Hong Kong: in LegCo itself and in the community. If we had left it out of an interim package, the package would probably have been amended by LegCo.
Not the only issue: we had also not reached a satisfactory understanding on the abolition of appointed membership.
WHAT IS THE POINT OF HAVING ELECTIONS IN 1995 IF THE CHINESE HOLD NEW ONES IN 1997?
1
It is our plain duty to administer Hong Kong to the best of our ability until 30 June 1997. That includes holding these elections.
The legislation introduced by the Governor responds to the evident desire for more democracy in Hong Kong; they are consistent with the Basic Law, and in many respects reflect agreed positions in the talks.
A good deal of water will flow under the bridge between now and 1997.
The Chinese Government has a strong interest in a smooth transfer of power in 1997. If the arrangements in place are then working well and are consistent with the Joint Declaration and the Basic Law - cannot see whey they should be changed.
WHY NOT GO FOR A 100% DIRECTLY-ELECTED LEGCO IN 1995?
Our aim all along has been to reconcile two things:
meeting the Hong Kong people's wish for a credible democratic system;
putting in place arrangements which can survive beyond 1997.
That is why the Governor's proposals were carefully within the terms of the Basic Law. We still believe that this is the right approach.
WHY NOT BRING ELECTIONS FORWARD AND HOLD THEM BEFORE 1995?
supp.3.12.BB.JRB
4
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.