CONFIDENTIAL
Mr. Hum
HICK 040/12.
FROM:
DATE:
SAD 18
W5
bould I please
have a copy of the Balı
CO Hum, HKD
28 December 1984
2 Jan 1985.
Artile?
7.8.9/1
CC: Mr Burrows, Legal Advisers o/r
Dr Wilson
HONG KONG AGREEMENT: ARTICLE BY CHINESE LEGAL EXPERT
on
A 1. You commented on 10 December, in connection with an article
the Hong Kong agreement by a Chinese lawyer, that his definition of "the laws currently in force"
as those laws in force before the
initialling of the Joint Declaration was exactly the view we
You said that we should not let i t
an we might put out
intent
on insuring against. stand unchallenged and suggested that
Hong Kong countering it.
were
article in
B
co
2.
Mr Margolis commented
8 December.
commentators
C
D
on
the
same
article in
a
letter to
me on
or
In the
He noted that
that none of the independent papers in Hong Kong had picked up Zhang Youyu's point. light of this I wrote to Hong Kong asking whether they thought that
I we should still try to get
own interpretation put across. Our pointed out that it might have the effect of bringing the point to public attention and risking a Chinese rebuttal which would increase
Hong Kong have now replied agreeing that it would be best
to let the matter rest.
concern.
3. I conclude that we
Zhang Youyu's article.
case
at
should not seek to publish a refutation of
We need however to have a line prepared in
It would be some later stage someone picks the point up.
we on how best
can present helpful to have Mr Burrows' views argument on a point where the Chinese interpretation of the agreement clearly runs
inevitable that
seems
our
to our own. It
sooner or later in the
directly counter
shall have we
to argue it out
Joint Liaison Group itself.
2 January 1985
Citum
Hong Kong Department
CONFIDENTIAL