Wen Wei Po last week continued its attack on Governor Chris Patten with these commentaries; one praising veteran sinologist Percy Cradock, and the other accusing Britain of trying to pressure Beijing. SIR Percy Cradock, former foreign affairs adviser to the British Government and former ambassador to Beijing, told the media during his recent visit to Hongkong that opposing the Chinese Government would damage the territory's interests. Sir Percy, who has severely criticised Governor Mr Chris Patten's political reform package, said the confrontation between the British and Chinese governments was due to the arrival of a new Hongkong governor. He believed that if the Chinese and British sides wanted to reach a favourable outcome in the Sino-British negotiations in Beijing, both parties had to proceed calmly and not adopt the ''hue and cry'' approach of Mr Patten. He said Sino-British relationships would be improved only if the British side agreed to adopt a calm attitude when going back to the negotiation table. The advice from Sir Percy was balanced, objective and to the point. Hongkong is part of China's territory. No matter how strong the influence or forces are, the fact that Hongkong is to be returned to China in 1997 cannot be reversed. Mr Patten should not ignore this significant point. He could never hope to change the course of history by attempting to oppose the Chinese Government. What Mr Patten has to do is to make use of the limited time left before the handover to guarantee and maintain the benefits and interests of the British Government by implementing the Sino-British Joint Declaration. The relationship between Hongkong and China is close economically, culturally and in daily life. If Hongkong is separated from mainland China, it would be hard for it to develop or even survive. That fact is recognised by all parties. Therefore, knowledgable people would definitely not be so stupid as to suggest the idea of opposing China. They would know that as the fact of Hongkong being returned to China is unchangeable, they should not openly pit the territory against China and try to create an independent Hongkong. It will certainly affect British interests if the territory is in a mess. In other words, the benefits of the British Government in the Far East will also be adversely affected, as Hongkong is the base of development for the British. As the UK's former Beijing ambassador, Sir Percy examined the political facts, evaluated the reality of the situation and verified the facts in order to get to the truth. His objectivity, fairness and unbending refusal to be intimidated enabled him to righteously criticise the incorrect policy adopted by the British Government towards China and Hongkong when he was in England. And during his stay in Hongkong, on his way to visit China, Sir Percy also adopted a fair and sincere attitude in offering his advice and criticism to Mr Patten. Mr Patten should humbly listen to, and follow, the advice from Sir Percy. This is not only the wish of Sir Percy but also the hope of all Hongkong people. Mr Patten does not fully understand the situation of Hongkong and China. He believed what he did was correct and is reluctant to seek advice from others. This will only worsen the situation and worsen the relationship with China during the run-up to 1997. The Sino-British negotiations are now in their third round, and the fourth round is about to start. Sir Percy is happy about this. He pointed out that the meeting should proceed ''quietly and calmly'', and suggested that both parties should act accordingto the negotiating rules of international diplomacy by keeping the content of the meeting confidential. They must not act like Mr Patten, deliberately releasing the information so as to exert pressure on the Chinese side and create hindrances. EVEN as the Chinese and British governments were ready for the fourth round of talks regarding the 1994 and 1995 election arrangements, the Hongkong British Government suddenly announced ''piecemeal'' election arrangements in different packages to be submitted to the Legislative Council for approval. This move has clearly shown the insincerity of the British Government, and reflects its attempt to pose obstacles to the talks and exert pressure on the Chinese side. The Legislative Council on Wednesday approved the Boundary and Election Commission Bill. Before the legal passage of the ''piecemeal'' election arrangement, some people were encouraging the splitting of the 1994 and 1995 election arrangements, so as to start the 1994 election package first, aiming at creating public discussion to tie in with the Government's bid to pass the Bill. It is common knowledge that the subject of the current Sino-British negotiations is ''the election arrangements for the 1994 and 1995 elections'' and how they should converge with the Basic Law. Any agreement reached without compromise by both parties will not survive after 1997. Legco's move was rather unwise. It will not only affect the smooth transition of Hongkong, but also hinder the talks. The main factor in achieving success in negotiations and talks is the establishment of a trusting relationship and the expression of sincerity by both parties. If one party tries to present the other side with a fait accompli before the talks are concluded, this could not be considered as negotiation. Mr Patten might still be sticking to the negotiating tactics recommended by the Solomon Report. However, China will never compromise on the ''three conformities'', and bids by Mr Patten to set deadlines and exert pressure on China will only delay the talks and damage the spirit of co-operation. His attempt to play tricks through manipulating Legco will also be futile. His acts will be criticised by those citizens who wish to have a smooth transition. The Chinese side will never concede on the three conformities. The election arrangements for 1994-1995 are one issue which cannot be split up. The British side must stop ''holding talks on the one hand and making false starts on the other''. They must show their sincerity to ensure the talks can progress normally, or should be held responsible for any adverse consequences resulting from that.