TNAG-2991-FCO40-3566-Future-of-Hong-Kong-constitutional-development-1992 — Page 47

Mr Hum

SECRET

Mas Belz

FROM: P F Ricketts

Hong Kong Department

DATE: 2 July 1992

CC: PS/Mr Patten

PS/Mr Goodlad

Sir John Coles o/r

Mr Davies, FED

Mr Llewelyn

67

HONG KONG: CRITICAL PATH

1.

Mr Patten poses good questions.

All the recipients of the minute will have their own prescription. The Governor's Policy Committee in Hong Kong is likely to be the key forum. To get the ball rolling, I offer the following immediate thoughts.

2.

Where do we want to land up? We will not be able to satisfy all the constituencies: Westminster, the various shades of Hong Kong opinion, China. But one objective should be to avoid alienating any of them completely. We need to keep them all in play, as we have done since 1984. То achieve that, we should in my view put continuity above another incremental increase in the number of

directly-elected seats. But we should sell that concession for as much as possible. The most feasible price is Chinese acquiescence in exploiting the flexibility available elsewhere in the Basic Law (a representative Election Committee, beefed up franchises for the funcional constituencies, a lower voting age, perhaps 100% direct elections for the 1994 District Board and Regional and Urban Council elections).

3 The alternative of forcing through a unilateral increase in the number of directly-elected seats for 1995 seems to me to pose greater threats to Hong Kong's long term interests. It would almost certainly produce several years of non-cooperation from China. The practical business of ensuring a smooth transition would not get done. The result would be large discontinuities in 1997. Many areas of opinion in Hong Kong would see this as sacrificing Hong Kong in the interests of an easy life at Westminster.

If something on those lines is accepted as a bottom line, there are then two big questions:

4.

JIFABR

SECRET