- 2
Our unanimous conclusion is that whilst such
In the
postulations may provide some interesting food for thought, the
conclusions seems to have been based on false premises.
emotive spirit under which this Bill has been discussed in the
past month, we feel duty bound for the common good of Hong
Kong, to try our best to explain first how we perceive the
intention of this clause and secondly to sound a note of
caution against the blind acceptance of unfounded misgivings
and erroneous assumptions as grounds for reflecting the clause.
Clause 14 (2) is indeed in a format that has been used
traditionally in territories where the responsibility for
defence and foreign policy lies with the sovereign state. The
aim is to spell out clearly to LegCo Members where the limit
lies in exercising their future duties. We LegCo Members
cannot unilaterally command access to files containing written
communications (for example, in the form of minutes, memoranda,
and letters) on the armed forces, on matters affecting the
security of Hong Kong and on matters such as foreign policy
that fall directly under the responsibility of HMG as regards
Hong Kong up to 1997 and under the PRC for the years beyond.
It must also be emphasized that the dominant word is
'correspondence', which must be treated in a more cautious way
than other evidence, oral or documentary.
To give an example
in language a layman may understand. Imagine that there were
rumours about submarines being built in a dockyard in H.K.