THERE is no doubt that most people in Hong Kong want to see more co-operation between London and Beijing in preparation for the transfer of sovereignty. Regular surveys of public opinion show that people's confidence in a smooth transition rises and falls with the temperature of Sino-British relations. To some politicians, however, any agreement between those two governments spells doom. These politicians claim to represent the wishes of the Hong Kong people, yet they always react with rage when the people welcome a Sino-British accord. These belligerent people seem to thrive on discord between Britain and China. They must have felt very comfortable in recent years, considering the scarcity of consensus. They make no effort to hide their jubilation when the two sides are at loggerheads to the chagrin of most other people in the territory. They lash out whenever there is any sign of reconciliation. They accuse every agreement between London and Beijing of betraying Hong Kong. When they launch their broadsides at the governments, they are not indiscriminately 'giving each side 50 spanks', as the Chinese put it. If one gets such an impression it is only superficial. On closer scrutiny one will find that whenever they allege a crime has been committed against the interests of Hong Kong, China is always the perpetrator and Britain an accessory. Their basic premise is that Beijing is always up to some sinister plot to rob us of our freedoms, crush our democracy and undermine our rule of law. Britain is there to guard the interests of Hong Kong against this threatening malefactor. Every time an agreement is made between the two governments, it is China having its way and Britain kowtowing. In failing to stand firm Britain becomes an accomplice in China's plot. When Chris Patten announced his electoral arrangement proposals shortly after he took office, these belligerent people urged him to go ahead with his plans regardless of China's opinions. They applauded when the controversial electoral bill was gazetted before consultation with China could take place. Their applause was in stark contrast with the general disappointment among the public as shown in opinion polls. They protested when talks started later between the two governments. While many hoped to see the talks conclude with a through train for the elected institutions, they told people that the through train would lead Hong Kong to hell. They kept calling for a stop to the talks while they were still going on, and when the talks finally broke down, their triumphant elation again set them apart from the rest of the community. The passing of the electoral bill in the Legislative Council was hailed by them as a great victory, and it gave support to their urging the Government to take more unilateral action. The belligerents were not happy with even the accords on defence lands and the new airport. They suggested that behind these agreements there must have been secret deals, in which London and Beijing feathered their nests and conspired to sell out Hong Kong people in some mysterious way. THEY are infuriated at the slightest hint of rapprochement between the Government and the Preliminary Working Committee. They see betrayal in every small move made by the Patten administration to establish liaison with China's Hong Kong advisers. Although they castigate the head of China's Hong Kong and Macau Affairs Office for not meeting the Governor or his senior aides, it is extremely doubtful they would be happy if such meetings did take place. The Court of Final Appeal agreement is another of those preciously few accords reached between China and Britain, and so it must of course be attacked by these anti-agreement fighters. The more significant the agreement, the angrier they are and the more vehemently they protest. Hence the accusations of a 'landmark sellout, landmark betrayal'. They resent it all the more when they feel that the latest agreement bodes well for further Sino-British co-operation. They may not be true, but they already hear the alarm ringing. The positive response to the agreement from both the local and international communities once again shows that the special liking for discord and unilateral action belongs to only a small minority.