CONFIDENTIAL
10.
common
I aw,
rules of equity,
subordinate legislation and autonomy law)
maintained save for any that contravene
ordinances,
should be
the Basic
power of
s ome signs
this, and
at least
Law and subject to any amendment by the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region of the
final adjudication". There have been
that the Chinese intend to interpret
other similar passages in the agreement,
when it suits them, to mean the laws as they were in 1984 when the Agreement was initialled, while we
interpret it as the laws as they will be on 30 June
1997. We cannot exclude that the Chinese might
state this position publicly in response to a change of the type now proposed. This difficulty will arise whenever we seek to make changes in Hong Kong between n ow and 1997. But in my view repeal
this ordinance is not the sort of issue on which
should choose to tackle the Chinese on these
of
we
wider questions.
the
We could instruct Peking to mak e
following
points in reply if the Chinese did raise the issue of
repeal:
(a)
the ordinance was enacted in 1951, when the
situation in Hong Kong was entirely different from that prevailing today;
(b)
the
not
(c)
in
unnecessary and could
powers are archaic and
realistically be used in present day Hong Kong;
the unlikely event of violently hostile propaganda being published by those seeking to
undermine Hong Kong's stability and prosperity, adequate powers exist in other legislation.
emergency, special powers could be taken.
In an
CONFIDENTIAL