Letter: What China agreed to for Hong Kong
Your support helps us to tell the story
From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.
At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.
The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.
Your support makes all the difference.Sir: Teresa Poole may well be right ('China sounds death-knell of democracy in Hong Kong', 1 September) that the Beijing regime's unanimous decision to terminate all Hong Kong's democratic bodies on its assumption of power in 1997 'was no surprise', but it is certainly not in line with the Sino-British agreements of 1984 and after.
The Basic Law, agreed with the Chinese government and often relied upon by it for its anti-democratic actions, states clearly in Article 8:
The ultimate aim is the election of all the members of the Legislative Council by universal election.
How does Beijing square its latest decision with such unambiguous wording? Surely the modest progress proposed by Hong Kong is a step towards that 'ultimate aim'?
Yours faithfully,
MICHAEL MEADOWCROFT
Leeds, West Yorkshire
1 September
The writer was leader of the Electoral Reform Society delegation to Hong Kong, 1991.
Join our commenting forum
Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies
Comments