From: cw@orion.uucp (C.W. Chung)
Subject: Re: My dismay (was: Re: What do you think of Chris Patten)
Organization: Objectivity Inc.
Date: Sat, 12 Dec 92 02:20:07 GMT

In article <eln235s.723898141@lindblat.cc.monash.edu.au> eln235s@lindblat.cc.monash.edu.au (Humphrey Hui) writes:
>cw@orion.uucp (C.W. Chung) writes:
>
>[... analysis deleted ...]
>
>>The process that Patten drum up the support for his plan is in 
>>every way exactly what you don't want to do in real life to your
>>counterpart: when you have an idea to change the nature of an
>>agreement, you consult with your counterpart.  You don't surprise
>>him by making announcement in public, then holding town meeting to
>>drum up public support (playing public opinion card), and then
>>drumming international support (another taboo for CG).  You 
>>have to be incredibly naive to do this if he is not intentionally
>>provokig the CG.  Of course, I have a hard time in believing that 
>>Patten is so naive, given Patten is such a seasoned politician.

>Just 2 points, I want to note,
>1. You assumed that HK people, by and large, shouldn't have any say on
>   the matter; and any support from the public must imply playing "public
>   opinion card". If we don't have any say in this matter, I just can't
>   see the "high degree of automony" would be possible in the future.

How do you infer what 'I assumed'?  I don't think I have said anything
like that!

I think the key to success of any negotiation is to make all sides (esp the
one who holds the key to the final approval) feel that are involved in the
discussion, and don't have the feeling being left out.  There is indeed a 
difference in being perceived to 'play the opinion card' to force you will
to the other party.  I don't have any bright idea, but in the past, such 
thought would probably be presented to the Chinese and at about the same time
deliberately leaked to the media in the name of some well-informed source 
to generate some discussion among people of HK.  When the initial reactions
from all sides seems to be positive, then it is time to formally bring it up.
I think that should work better than what is right now.

Also in reality, it is the more powerful parties that likely will have the 
info first.  That's why we have JLG discussing the matter related to HK 
by reps from British and China!  Another example is in the USA in the 
initial merger talk between two companies, only the chiefs are involved -
the lower-rank people often have to read the rumors from the newspaper.  
It is not a pleasant fact, but it happened all the time, even in democracy.

>2. What do we (as a HK citizen) expect our future governor to deal with
>   China? If your theory worked, it would mean that the governor should
>   consult the CG BEFORE any consultation with us. I definitely don't
>   hope that would happen after '97. But, if we still held that the
>   "counterpart" be consulted first, that wouldn't be far from reality.

When Bush decided to impose duties to French wine, did he consult with 
the people of USA?  Well, he certainly didn't consult with each one of
the citizen  before making the decision.  However, he probably has 
consulted the representatives of the various industries and depts and 
I think that is how reality works.  

-cw-
Newsgroups: talk.politics.china