CONFIDENTIAL
F
G
6.
Advisers
The Legal
have been consulted on these
proposals and see no difficulty with them in principle.
No
amendment to the Letters Patent or Royal Instruction would
be required. They have, however, pointed out that there is some degree of duplication between the proposed oath and the existing Oath of Fidelity. Hong Kong have in reply confirmed that they recognise this duplication, but feel
that the need to introduce a new oath on the same lines as
that introduced for LegCo outweighs this minor
disadvantage: and that the best opportunity to remove any overlap would be when the Oath of Fidelity is itself next
reviewed.
7. I agree with Hong Kong's proposals.
The introduction
of the alternative oath for
new LegCo members was well
received in Hong Kong last year: and the new oath was
preferred by the majority of those who first took their
seats in LegCo last October.
I see no reason why the
introduction of the new oath for ExCo members should cause
difficulties now.
The Chinese did not query the
introduction of the new LegCo oath. It seems unlikely that
they should query the present step, or that it would cause them concern. The proposal would be explained to them, if
necessary, as a logical extension of the oath
the oath introduced
for LegCo members last year, given the Governor's wish to
continue the present practice of appointing some members of
ExCo from among the membership of LegCo. The dilution of
the "colonial" relationship of allegiance to the Queen
should be welcome to them.
стои
CO Hum
Hong Kong Department
with the recommandation. I do not
Palace
corte
чес
Bbjection;
2 June 1986
адкат
It at the Itati
CONFIDENTIAL
еж
7