TNAG-2989-FCO40-3575-Future-of-Hong-Kong-constitutional-development-talks-betwee-1992 — Page 74

UNCLASSIFIED

032650 MDHIAN 6877

The

amport;

'ON DIRECT ELECTIONS, LI HUO SAID THAT THE TWO SIDES HAD CONSULTED MANY TIMES ABOUT THE NUMBER OF DIRECTLY ELECTED LEGCO MEMBERS, IN ORDER TO ACHIEVE CONVERGENCE BEFORE AND AFTER 1997. IT WAS CLEAR FROM THE 7 DOCUMENTS, FIRSTLY IN BRITISH FOREIGN SECRETARY MR HURD'S LETTER TO QIAN QICHEN THAT THE BRITISH SIDE WAS WILLING TO CONFIRM THE UNDERSTANDING REACHED WITH CHINA THAT IF THE FINALISED BASIC LAW SPECIFIED 20 DIRECTLY ELECTED SEATS IN 1997, 24 IN 1999 AND 30 IN 2003, THEN THE BRITISH GOVERNMENT WOULD LIMIT THE NUMBER OF DIRECTLY ELECTED SEATS TO 18 IN 1991. IT IS IMPOSSIBLE FOR MR PATTEN TO DENY THIS FACT WRITTEN IN BLACK INK ON WHITE PAPER BECAUSE UNDERSTANDING HAD ALREADY BEEN REACHED BY THE TWO SIDES. ACCORDING TO THE PROVISIONS OF THE BL AND THE RELEVANT DECISIONS OF THE NPC, THE 1995 LEGCO COULD ONLY SURVIVE THE TRANSITION IF IT WAS ELECTED ACCORDING TO THE BASIC LAW AND IF IT PASSED SCRUTINY BY THE PREPARATORY COMMITTEE OF THE HKSAR. IF THE NUMBER OF DIRECTLY ELECTED SEATS IN 1997 IS TO BE 20 AS SPECIFIED IN THE BL THEN THE NUMBER OF SEATS IN 1995 SHOULD ALSO BE 20 OTHERWISE CONVERGENCE WOULD BE IMPOSSIBLE. LI GOES ON TO QUOTE FROM MR HURD'S SPEECH TO THE HOUSE OF COMMONS IN 1990. THEREFORE ON WHAT BASIS COULD MR PATTEN SAY THAT THE TWO SIDES HAD NOT REACHED AGREEMENT ON THE QUESTION OF 1995 ELECTIONS.

'LI HOU SAID THAT MR PATTEN HAD NOT BEEN GOVERNOR OF HONG KONG FOR VERY LONG BUT IN THAT SHORT TIME HE HAD MOVED TOO FAR AWAY FROM THE JD, THE BL AND THE UNDERSTANDINGS BETWEEN THE TWO SIDES. A CHINESE PROVERB SAID 'IF A PERSON IS NOT FAITHFUL TO WHAT HE HAS SAID, HOW CAN PEOPLE BELIEVE WHAT HE WILL DO IN THE FUTURE'. THE CHINESE SIDE WANTED TO ASK MR PATTEN WHETHER OR NOT HE REALLY WISHED TO CONTINUE TO COOPERATE WITH THE CHINESE SIDE ON THE BASIS OF THE JOINT DECLARATION. DID HE STILL WANT CONVERGENCE WITH THE BASIC LAW? DID THE UNDERSTANDINGS REACHED BY THE TWO GOVERNMENTS IN THE PAST STILL COUNT FOR ANYTHING? CHINA AND BRITAIN HAD ENJOYED GOOD COOPERATION ON THE QUESTION OF HONG KONG SINCE THE JD WAS SIGNED IN 1984, DESPITE A FEW PROBLEMS. THE KIND OF PUBLIC DEBATE WHICH WAS CURRENTLY TAKING PLACE BETWEEN THE TWO SIDES WAS NO RESPONSIBILITY OF THE CHINESE SIDE. MR PATTEN HAD STIRRED UP THIS DEBATE WHICH WOULD EFFECT SINO-BRITISH RELATIONS. WAS MR PATTEN REALLY ACTING IN HONG KONG'S INTEREST AND IN THE INTEREST OF SINO-BRITISH FRIENDLY RELATIONS? IF SO HE SHOULD 'HALT HIS HORSE BEFORE IT FELL OF A CLIFF' AND RETURN TO THE PATH OF DOING BUSINESS ON THE BASIS OF THE JD AND UNDERSTANDING REACHED PREVIOUSLY BY THE TWO SIDES WITHOUT INCREASING CONFRONTATION. OTHERWISE IF MR PATTEN CONTINUED IN THIS WAY AND THE PREPARATIONS DO NOT CONVERGE WITH THE BASIC LAW

•

5

PAGE UNCLASSIFIED