From: eln235s@lindblat.cc.monash.edu.au (Humphrey Hui)
Subject: Re: My dismay (was: Re: What do you think of Chris Patten)
Organization: Monash University, Melb., Australia.
Date: Sat, 12 Dec 1992 11:56:38 GMT

cw@orion.uucp (C.W. Chung) writes:

>In article <eln235s.723898141@lindblat.cc.monash.edu.au> eln235s@lindblat.cc.monash.edu.au (Humphrey Hui) writes:

>>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!

This is not essential to our discussion, thus, take it that I have
misinterpreted your words. Alright?:-)

>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

IMHO, the one affected should play a stronger in the whole process. But,
apparently, the whole process is getting far too opaque to most
of the people in HK.

>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 

That probably the way they used to work. It is somehow quite obvious in
dealing with INTERNATIONAL AFFAIR. But, my question is that "Do we want
our governor in the future consult solely the PRC for matter that 
probably bring conflicts between HK and mainland?"

Alternatively, are we just too used to the system UK and PRC are playing? 
IMHO, the transparency or the accountability of governor should be increased. 
Such kind of "leaking information to media" are simply too confusing to
the public.

>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.

That is the money game! Holders of larger share have a larger rights.

>>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.  

I am not into the US politics; but, I think he need the Congress
approval (or, non-veto). Correct me if I am wrong. 

Maybe, "consultation with us" caused the trouble. It was meant to be
"consultation with some relevant people". Thus, for matter affecting the
basic rights of everyone, I just can't take it that only the CG or the big
men be consulted.

-- 
------------------------------------------------------------------
Humphrey Hui                      :  Have you taken a risk lately?
HHUI@basil.eng.monash.edu.au      :  Life is boring without risk!
Newsgroups: talk.politics.china