No more closed doors

AS the British and Chinese governments continue their brinkmanship and megaphone diplomacy, the most encouraging news to emerge is that both sides may decide to reveal the contents of the 17 rounds of secret negotiations on the colony's electoral arrangements.

Many Hong Kong people simply cannot wait to learn more about the wheeling and dealing which went on behind closed doors where both sides claimed to represent the interests of the Hong Kong people.

Fed up as the Hong Kong people are with the Sino-British row, they can see that the Chinese Government is determined to control future Legislative Council elections. For Beijing, to hold elections and not know the results in advance is taking democracy too far.

The Hong Kong people can also see that the British are powerless to ensure that 1984 Sino-British Joint Declaration will be faithfully implemented.

On December 6 the British Foreign Secretary, Douglas Hurd, told the House of Commons: ''Will we bequeath to Hong Kong an open and democratic system offering the electorate a genuine choice? Or will we settle for a system based on small electorates open to manipulation and corruption?'' It is not surprising that Mr Hurd failed to admit that the much maligned functional constituency elections, a form of limited franchise, was created by London in 1985. Among these ''constituencies'', the Urban Council has an electorate of 40 and the Regional Council 36. If Mr Hurd is serious in giving Hong Kong clean elections, he should move swiftly to abolish these two ''constituencies''.

Britain's attempt to give the colony a drop of democracy at the 11th hour in the form of Governor Patten's proposal in October 1992 is indeed too little, too late and is understandably viewed by many people with misgiving. Nevertheless, regardless of dark British motives, Hong Kong people should push ahead with demands for democratisation if they believe that is in their long-term interest.

THEY should not be intimidated into silence by belligerent and intransigent officials who purport to speak on their behalf. Many Hong Kong people neither trust the British nor the Chinese and are deeply dissatisfied with having no say in their destiny.

At the beginning of this year, Mr Hurd said the days were gone when Britain and China could decide the fate of Hong Kong behind closed doors. This was repeated on December 9 by the new Chief Secretary, Anson Chan Fang On-sang, adding that back-door dealswere intolerable to the Hong Kong people. Mrs Chan is right on the mark. So what is she proposing to make the arrangement acceptable to local people? If the British and Hong Kong governments are determined to practise what they preach, then they should not only disclose the 17 rounds of Sino-British negotiations but also pledge to keep Hong Kong fully informed about any future talks. Unless and until they see concrete action, the Hong Kong people will remain sceptical and suspicious.

One significant step to indicate the Hong Kong Government's willingness to inject more openness and transparency into the political process is to permit more public access to the 350 government advisory boards and committees. The question was raised in the Legislative Council by Anna Wu Hung-yuk on December 8 and elicited an unsympathetic and intransigent response.

If the Government is not even prepared to open up the parochial advisory boards, there is no reason to believe that it will contemplate taking the Hong Kong people into its confidence about the highly secretive Sino-British negotiations. It is time the Hong Kong Government put its money where its mouth is.