From: riekwan@halls1.cc.monash.edu.au (EDMUND KWAN)
Subject: Re: On the Baby (Re: HK Airport Project
Organization: Monash University, Melb., Australia.
Date: Sun, 27 Dec 1992 01:30:38 GMT

In article <1992Dec22.182800.1@uwovax.uwo.ca> wmleolau@uwovax.uwo.ca writes:
>From: wmleolau@uwovax.uwo.ca
>Subject: Re: On the Baby (Re: HK Airport Project
>Date: Tue, 22 Dec 1992 22:28:00 GMT

>In article <1992Dec22.131606.1@cua.edu>, 54yang@cua.edu writes:
>> In article <1992Dec16.194539.1@uwovax.uwo.ca>, wmleolau@uwovax.uwo.ca writes:
>> 
>> 
>>> 
>>> HK government understand more on the present HK situration than the
>>> Chinese government do, and the UK government more or less follow
>>> the HK government's suggestions.  This causes the image that HKites
>>                       ^^^^^^^^
>> a slave (colony) give suggestions to his master???
>> 

>Please don't use this kind of non-sense wordings.
>I hope you can tell the relationship between Shanghai City Government and
>Central Government.  If you want to use the "slave-master" for
>this, then please go to take a course on government administration, no
>matter in China or in USA.

>>> support UK.  Please, don't confuse this!
>>> 
>>> Chinese Government said that UK do not cooperate with China for the
>>> transition.  Since UK more or less follow HKites' view, that 
>>                                    ^^^^^^^
>> no, not follow, but dictate, giving colonial orders!!!
>> 

>Please go to library to read more newspapers!

>>> actually is Chinese Governemnt do not cooperate for the adminstation
>>> and transition of HK.
>> 
>> cooperation is not one-side only thing.  When Patten introduced some
>> reform measures, had he consulted from the Chinese government? Had he
>> made any cooperative intents with the Chinese government? NO!

>I agree that he did not consult Chinese government.  But the problem
>is that Chinese government did not accept the general opinion of HKites.
>As Patten's proposal reflects most HKites' view, HKites of course
>support it.

>If Chinese government use the view that HKites obey British government
>because we are under its administration, I will say HKites should
>stand stronger at the present time to get a better political
>system; otherwise, I doubt the freedom and human rights that the
>Chinese government promise in 1984 will still remain after 1997,
>since they will just assume we obey them.

>I don't want to see the local development of HK will be restricted
>by the central government.

>                       
>> Can you tell me who direct (lead, guide, decide) the HK government?
>> Why this guy assigned by UK came and caused such a dispute?
>> As I understand this issue, the issue is still between UK and CHINA,
>> about HK.  The British government may be enjoying right now while
>> watching HK people are divided.  This is what they hoped and wanted.
>> Do they want to cooperate?  Do they willingly return its colony back
>> to China and keep it wealthy, healthy?   I doubt.  You'd better
>> give some doubt before take a stand with UK at this point.
>> 
>> 54yang@cua.edu
>>

>If Patten did not come, democrats can just play a minor role in the
>political system before 1997 and may be suppressed after 1997 if
>China will be the same as present.  As he started the issue, a lot 
>of people got a hope for change.  Most people support Patten's
>proposal at that time   .  Then the Mainland side use the trading
>benefits to force HKites to oppose Patten's proposal.  The situration
>then become divided.  So, you can say Patten created the divided, but
>I would like to say it is the Chinese Governemnt directly causes the
>local conflict.

>As I say before, I think UK wants a more autonomous HK to keep
>its business in HK.  In addition, their moral standard tends to
>accept local HKites' view for a more democratic system.  This
>results in the reform purposal.

>I don't think UK just want to destroy HK.  You should go to learn
>more on the UK commerial benefits in HK.  At present, these
>companies also invest a lot in China.

>If you have other points you think UK can get the benefits, please
>tell us.  BTW, I don't think just use "doubt" can help you to
>manage an issue.

>I also want to know what is the points for Chinese Government
>to oppose HK's reform?  I just cannot justify what will be
>the real benefits for China for them to do all these
>unreasonable actions.  If the answer is "they are unreasonable",
>then I will just be enforced to want to have a more democratic
>system in HK.

>Merry Christmas and Happy New Year to all!

>Raymond Kwok

>The sad outcome of the bickering between the British and the Chinese over 
>HK is that the HK people will suffer.  In the final analysis, it is not 
>just a simple matter of who did or did not adhere to the spirit of the 
>agreement, but a desire by both sides to preserve face.  The British are 
>not completely facing up to the reality that their empire days and Pax 
>Britanica are gone.  The Chinese want to assert their way as the 
>commencement of a new modern era for China that will vanquish once and for 
>all a weak Middle Kingdom that had been bullied by foreign devils.  It 
>surprises me how the decision-makers on both sides are playing this game 
>of face which affects the destiny, prosperity and happiness of the HK 
>people while they are living and working in luxury at Westminister/
>Downing Street and at Zhongnanhai.  
        
Newsgroups: soc.culture.china