WITH the resumption of talks between Britain and China, there are certain points that are worth bearing in mind. First, despite the claim by Mr Martin Lee Chu-ming that the Basic Law as it presently stands is not chiselled in stone and can be amended, it is nevertheless a very impressive document drawn up in good faith with credible tripartite involvement and should be the basis of all talks. The one part that is in contention and which Britain, China and the Governor are all (understandably) having difficulty with, is the all-important unwritten appendix to the agreement, which comes under the intangible heading of ''The Spirit of the Basic Law''. Presently, everyone involved with the Basic Law agreement can be said to be in violation of the spirit of the original negotiations - especially those that want to change the Basic Law by trying to add things that have been thought of since, or because others have found a new courage to speak up since the agreement was first promulgated. It should go without saying that anyone who now attempts to circumvent, complement, or supplement the Basic Law is definitely out of order with the spirit of the agreement - unless, of course, all other parties agree to such changes. Having said that, if the Basic Law was established for the betterment of Hongkong, then anyone not willing to change the law on a matter of principle (even if such changes are in the best interests of Hongkong) are also in violation of the spirit of the agreement. There were, of course, matters that were left out or overlooked during the original negations. This being the case there is no reason why these should not be added now. But is to bring up matters that intimidate the other parties also outside the spirit of the Basic Law? It is all very subjective. As I see it, Britain feels that the real issue at this late stage is not just to try to do its best for Hongkong, but to be seen to be doing its best. This is the only way that Britain can silence future critics and this is why London would still keep to its present policy even if the Governor were to be changed. China would prefer history to show that it was the one to free the people of Hongkong from their colonial masters after more than a century of oppression, thereby giving their countrymen long-awaited democracy - something which had been withheld under the British. On such sensitive issues, both sides would do well to remember that during negotiations it is possible to achieve almost anything, as long as you do not seek to get the credit for such achievements. With regard to the latest stumbling block of the so called ''through train'', this also has no real significance and is just a matter of face, and China can afford to be generous. In reality, it is a bit like the on-going argument of the British senior civil servants who insist on going home on the Canberra. The Chinese are well aware that once the ship has docked and dropped its passengers, they can then take on a new complement of their own choice and set sail for wherever they please. A. E. GAZELEY. Wan Chai
