There is only one aspect of Danny Gittings' farewell piece ('The lull before the storm', Sunday Morning Post, August 25) that I do not go along with.
That is the implication that if Chris Patten had left well alone and not disrupted the convergence policy in 1992, difficult transitional problems might have been amicably resolved already.
Maybe. But that would only have created a false sense of confidence over individual and collective civil and political rights after July 1, 1997.
Before Mr Patten was appointed Governor the Independent Commission of Jurists had already come to the conclusion that in the manner of its drafting of the Basic Law, the PRC Government had deliberately reneged on its obligations under the Joint Declaration and that the British Government had shown 'supine acquiescence' in allowing them to.
Half an hour with the Basic Law will convince any sixth-former that it does not provide the constitutional machinery either to honour China's promise to let Hong Kong people rule Hong Kong with a high degree of autonomy or to honour the British Government's promise to put in place a 'firmly based democratic Administration' in the transitional period.
Mr Patten may have lost his long battle to get the PRC Government to respect the spirit of the Sino-British Joint Declaration, but he has at least exposed the duplicity of both the British and Chinese governments in their high-handed treatment of the people of Hong Kong who deserve better.
