CONFIDENTIAL
17019
1
FACT, RESTRICT THE SUBJECT OF DEBATE AT LEAST SO FAR AS PENDING
COURT CASES, THE CONDUCT OF THE QUEEN AND OF VARIOUS
FUNCTIONARIES IS CONCERNED. BUT NOTHING IN THAT STANDING ORDER
WOULD TOUCH ON ANYTHING LIKE THE BASIC LAW.
4.
TURNING TO THE POLITICAL ASPECTS, WE SEE TWO POSSIBLE
DANGERS IN AN ATTEMPT TO DEBAR SUCH A MOTION:
A)
B)
5.
IT WOULD ALMOST CERTAINLY AROUSE STRONG PRESS OPPOSITION
(MUZZLING OF FREE SPEECH, CONNIVANCE WITH CHINESE IN DOING SO ETC):
IF A MOTION ON THE BASIC LAW WERE DEBARRED, A QUESTION OF
WHETHER LEGCO COULD DEBATE A MATTER SUCH AS THE
NATIONALITY ORDER IN COUNCIL, WHICH LEGISLATIVELY FALLS
WITHIN THE EXCLUSIVE COMPETENCE OF THE WESTMINSTER
PARLIAMENT, COULD BE RAISED. WHILE THIS DANGER IS NOT
GREAT, THERE ARE LIKELY TO BE OTHER MATTERS OF A
POLITICAL NATURE BETWEEN NOW AND 1997 WHICH WILL BE OF
CONSIDERABLE INTERST TO HONG KONG'S INHABITANTS, WHICH
COULD ARGUABLY BE SAID TO BE OUT OF ORDER FOR DEBATE IN
LEGCO, BUT WHICH WE WOULD NEVERTHELESS NOT WISH TO DEBAR
THE COUNCIL FROM DEBATING.
SET AGAINST THESE DANGERS MUST OF COURSE BE THE ATTITUDE
OF THE CHINESE. THEY WILL PRESUMABLY CONSIDER IT INAPPROPRIATE
IN GENERAL FOR LEGCO TO DEBATE THE BASIC LAW. THE TERMS OF ANY
MOTION MIGHT SOFTEN THIS ATTITUDE A LITTLE BUTNOT, WE SUSPECT, A
LOT.
6.
I)
II)
III)
SEEN FROM HERE, A POSSIBLE COURSE MIGHT BE:
TO ALLOW A DEBATE IF THERE IS CONTINUING AND SUBSTANTIAL
PRESSURE FOR ONE:
FOR THE CHIEF SECRETARY TO STATE DURING THE DEBATE THE
VIEW OF THE GOVERNMENT THAT THE DRAFTING OF THE BASIC LAW
IS A MATTER FOR THE CHINESE GOVERNMENT, AND FOR OTHER
OFFICIAL MEMBERS TO ABSTAIN FROM PARTICIPATING IN THE
DEBATE:
FOR US TO EXPLAIN OUR DECISION TO ALLOW A DEBATE AND THE
INTENTIONS OF THE GOVERNMENT SPOKESMAN DURING IT TO THE
CHINESE IMMEDIATELY AFTER A DECISION ON THE DEBATE WAS
2
CONFIDENTIAL