***THIS IS THE FULL TEXT OF THE CHINA'S VERSION OF THE TALKS. PLEASE DO NOT PRINT THE WHOLE ARTICLE UNLESS ABSOLUTELY NECESSARY.*** THE following is the full text of ''facts about a few important aspects of Sino-British talks on 1994/95 electoral arrangements in Hong Kong'' made public by a Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman here today: From April to November 1993, the representatives of the Chinese and British Governments held 17 rounds of talks on the arrangements for the 1994/95 elections in Hong Kong. Before the talks started, the two sides reached an understanding on confidentiality of the contents of the talks. Now, without prior consultations with the Chinese side, the British side has published the White Paper, entitled Representative Government in Hong Kong, by which it has unilaterally released the contents of the talks, and in which it has distorted and attacked China's position. This move of Britain was designed to shirk its responsibility for the rupture of the talks. The Chinese side therefore cannot but bring to light the facts in order to help people know the truth. Constitutional Package The British side stubbornly clung to the constitutional package which contravened the Joint Declaration, the principle of convergence with the Basic Law and the agreements and understandings reached between the two sides. THE 1994/95 elections in Hong Kong are to produce the three-tier political structure - the Legislative Council, urban and regional councils and district boards. The Legislative Council was established according to letters patent. In the long history of 140 years since its institution in 1843, all its members have been appointed by the Governor of Hong Kong. In 1985 after the Sino-British Joint Declaration was signed, it began to have indirectly elected members and in 1991 direct elections started. In the current 60-member Legislative Council, three were official members, 18 were appointed by the governor, 18 directly elected from geographical constituencies, and 21 indirectly from functional constituencies. The Joint Declaration between the Government of the People's Republic of China and the Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland on the question of Hong Kong signed in 1984 contains explicit stipulations for the development of the political structure in Hong Kong. Since then the Chinese side spent four years and eight months in drafting the basic law of the Hong Kong special administrative region of the People's Republic of China on the basis of extensively soliciting opinions of the Hong Kong people and subsequently promulgated it. Meanwhile, the two sides discussed specific matters concerning the development of the political structure in Hong Kong, and reached a series of agreements, understandings and consensus. The Basic Law was well received by the general public in Hong Kong. The British side also made commitments on several occasions to convergence of the development of the political structure in Hong Kong with the Basic Law before 1997. However, in his first policy address delivered in October 1992 after he took office, Hong Kong Governor Chris Patten proposed a constitutional package, which spelled out, among other things, specific arrangements for the 1994/95 elections. The package contravened the Sino-British Joint Declaration, the principle of convergence with the Basic Law and agreements and understandings already reached between the two sides both in its contents and in the way it was produced. Annex II of the Joint Declaration stipulates that the Chinese and British governments should enhance co-operation in the second half of the transitional period in Hong Kong and jointly work out measures to ensure a smooth transition leading up to 1997. As the 1994/95 elections will have a direct bearing on the transition, there must be agreement between the Chinese and British governments on the electoral arrangements through consultations. Before October 1992, the Chinese side had suggested the Sino-British Joint Liaison Group begin at an early date its consultation on this issue. However, without prior consultations with the Chinese side, the British side suddenly and unilaterally made public a constitutional package in gross violation of the above-mentioned provisions of the Joint Declaration. The Basic Law states that the political structure in Hong Kong shall develop ''in accordance with the principles of gradual and orderly progress'' and ''in the light of the actual situation''. Annex II of the Basic Law and the relevant decision of the National People's Congress set out clearly the specific ratio and number of directly elected members of the first, second and third legislative councils of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region to be gradually increased. Chris Patten, however, has introduced in his package drastic changes to the existing political structure in Hong Kong and attempted to apply direct elections to all members of the Legislative Council in 1995, in disguise. The package has also tried to change the nature of the election by functional constituencies, and contained proposals obviously contradictory to the Basic Law on many specific issues. This package has also contravened the series of agreements, understandings and consensus already reached between the two sides, especially those reached by the exchange of letters between the two foreign ministers in early 1990. After it was made public,the package naturally met with strong opposition from the Chinese Government and provoked sharp criticism among Hong Kong people. Under these circumstances, the British Government was forced to ask for talks with the Chinese Government on the 1994/95 electoral arrangements in Hong Kong. Proceeding from the overall interests of effecting a smooth transition and maintaining prosperity and stability in Hong Kong, the Chinese Government agreed to talks and the two sides reached agreement on the basis for talks, that is, observance of the Joint Declaration, the principle of convergence with the Basic Law and the agreements and understandings already reached between the two sides or the three principles in short. The Chinese side had wished to see agreement reached in the talks at an earlier date so as to realise a smooth transition and smooth transfer of government in Hong Kong in 1997 through co-operation between China and Britain. To this end, the Chinese sidemade unremitting efforts in the talks. During the first three rounds of the talks, the Chinese side made it plain that as the two sides had agreed upon the three principles as the basis for the talks, it believed it was important for the British side to first of all confirm the agreements, understandings and consensus previously reached between the two sides, for this was the only way to enable the talks to move on the right track. If it was reluctant to do so and wanted to amend or overturn them, then it would be impossible to ensure compliance on future agreements. Therefore, the Chinese side produced an eight-point text which it wished to be confirmed (see annex I). The British side had all along refused to confirm some of the agreements and understandings already reached between the two sides. For the rest, it tried to avoid confirming their substance by paying lip service with no intention of observing or implementing them when it came to concrete matters. In rounds four to nine of the talks, the Chinese side put forward proposals on several major issues in accordance with the three principles. It proposed to focus on the electoral arrangements for district boards and municipal councils before moving on to discuss the 1995 Legislative Council elections, but was rejected by the British side. During this period, the British side moved to offer some new views different from Chris Patten's package, but in essence, it stuck to the substance of the package on some major issues. From the 10th to the 13th round of talks, the Chinese side made further adjustments to its proposal in order to push forward the talks, but as the British side refused to reverse its position of contravening the three principles, the talks progressed rather slowly. Vice-Premier and Foreign Minister Qian Qichen once again proposed during his meeting with Foreign Secretary Douglas Hurd in New York in October 1993 that the electoral arrangements for the district organisations, i.e. the district boards and two municipal councils, and for the Legislative Council should be discussed in two phases. Starting from the 14th round, the Chinese side once again called for separate discussions on the electoral arrangements for the district organisations and for the 1995 Legislative Council and spelt out its views. The British side agreed to China's proposal at first, but when the two sides were close to an agreement, it insisted on including the voting method for the 1995 Legislative Council into the understanding on the electoral arrangements for district organisations. When its unreasonable demand was rejected by the Chinese side, it unilaterally discontinued the talks at the 17th round and submitted to the Legislative Council part of the question under discussion between the two sides, which directly led to the termination of the talks. The British side attempted to interfere in the affairs falling within the scope of China's sovereignty. China's Sovereignty The British side attempted to interfere in the affairs falling within the scope of China's sovereignty. THE topic of the Sino-British talks was the arrangements for the 1994/95 elections in Hong Kong. This was first proposed by the British side and then agreed upon by the two sides. This was also the objective of the talks. However, at the outset and later, the British side insisted on discussing with China the following three issues: Consultation between the two sides about Hong Kong membership of the Preparatory Committee of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region; universal suffrage for the election of the Legislative Council in 2007, if that was the wish of the Hong Kong SAR; that the method of forming the election committee in 1995 should be used for the future selection committee for the first chief executive of the Hong Kong SAR and election committees for its subsequent chief executives. The Chinese side made it clear that all the three issues raised by the British side went beyond the arrangements for the 1994/95 elections in Hong Kong and should therefore not be covered by the talks. With regard to election of all members of the Legislative Council of the Hong Kong SAR by universal suffrage after 2007, Article 68 of the Basic Law and paragraph 3 of its annex II contain provisions to this effect (see annex ii). It is a question to be decided by the Hong Kong SAR itself and it needs no guarantee by the Chinese Government. As for the 1995 election committee as the model, the selection committee for producing the first chief executive of the Hong Kong SAR and election committees for its subsequent chief executive have different functions from those of the election committee which would elect members of the Legislative Council in 1995. The decision of the National People's Congress on the method for the formation of the first government and the first Legislative Council of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region adopted in April 1990 (see annex III) and annex I of the Basic Law (see annex IV) have all clearly provided for how to produce the selection committee for the first chief executive and the election committees for the subsequent chief executives. To replace or revise the relevant provisions is out of the question. On the question of consultation between the two sides on Hong Kong members of the preparatory committee, it is entirely within China's sovereignty to organise the said preparatory committee. According to the relevant NPC decision, the chairman and members of the preparatory committee to be set up in 1996, including those from Hong Kong, should be appointed by the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress. Apparently, the Basic Law and the NPC decisions have explicit provisions for all the three issues. They are matters within China's sovereignty. The motive of the British side in raising these questions is obvious. Agreements must be reached Agreements and understandings reached between the two sides on the election committee must be observed. IN early 1990, the foreign ministers of China and Britain exchanged seven messages on how to make the 1995 Hong Kong Legislative Council elections converge with the Basic Law so as to guarantee a smooth transition in 1997 and reached agreements and understandings on a series of issues, including the composition and ratio of the election committee. With regard to the election committee for 1995, Mr Qian made it clear in his letter dated February 8, 1990 that ''the provisions on the composition and ratio of the election committee as specified in paragraph two of Annex I of the Basic Law (draft) mustbe followed, because Annex I was approved by a two-thirds majority of the membership of the drafting committee at its eighth plenary session. The Chinese side is of the view that the above-mentioned composition and ratio are appropriate and need no alteration''. In his letter of reply dated February 12, Mr Hurd agreed with the Chinese proposal by saying: ''I agree in principle with the arrangements which you propose for an electoral committee, which could be established in 1995. The precise details of how this should be done can be discussed between our two sides in due course.'' Thus the foreign ministers of the two countries did reach an unequivocal agreement and understanding on the composition and ratio of the 1995 election committee. According to provisions of paragraph 2 of Annex I of the Basic Law, the election committee shall be comprised of members from the following four sectors: the industrial, commercial and financial sectors; the professionals; the labour, social services, religious and other sectors; members of the Legislative Council, representatives of district-based organisations, Hong Kong deputies to the National People's Congress, and representatives of Hong Kong members of the national committee of the Chinese People'sPolitical Consultative Conference, with each sector taking up one-fourth of the total membership (see Annex IV). However, Chris Patten's plan proposed that ''the 1995 election committee should draw all or most of the members from the directly-elected district boards''. This directly contradicted the agreement and understanding reached between the two foreign ministers in early 1990. During the talks, the British side flatly denied the fact that there had been agreement or understanding between the two sides on the election committee. After patient reasoning by the Chinese side, it only agreed to part of the Chinese proposal that thecomposition and ratio of the first three sectors of the election committee may follow the relevant provisions of paragraph 2 of Annex I of the Basic Law. But it still insisted that the fourth sector should be composed of representatives of the district-based organisations in the place of those as set out in paragraph 2 of Annex I, which meant a significant change to paragraph 2 of Annex I of the Basic Law.