CONFIDENTIAL

HKB BB/1

B

025211

MDLIAN 7342

CONFIDENTIAL

FM UKREP JLG HONG KONG

TO PRIORITY FCO

TELNO 133

OF 11OOOZ MAY 89

INFO ROUTINE PEKING, HONG KONG

(27)

YRTELNO 53: FOREIGN LAWYERS

TOP COPY

1. I CONSULTED HKG WHO WERE NOT WILLING TO DEFER THE ANNOUNCEMENT.

2. I RANG WANG JIAJI TO INFORM HIM OF THIS, BUT BEFORE I COULD SAY SO HE SAID THAT IN ANY CASE HE WISHED TO CALL ON ME TO DISCUSS THE QUESTION. HE ACCORDINGLY CALLED ON ME ON 1 MAY.

3. WANG SAID THAT THE CHINESE VIEWS ON THE HKG PROPOSALS ON FOREIGN LAW FIRMS HAD BEEN MADE CLEAR BY KE AT HIS INFORMAL MEETING WITH MCLAREN IN FEBRUARY. (ALTHOUGH I QUERIED THIS, WANG MAINTAINED THAT IT HAD BEEN IN FEBRUARY. I THINK HE MUST HAVE BEEN REFERRING TO THE INTERPLENARY MEETING IN JANUARY). THE CHINESE SIDE UNDERSTOOD THAT THIS WAS A CONSULTATIVE DOCUMENT NOT REFLECTING A DECISION BY HKG. THE CHINESE SIDE'S POSITION WAS CLEAR FROM THE JD AND THE DRAFT BASIC LAW CHE DID NOT ELABORATE FURTHER). THE CHINESE SIDE WOULD CONTINUE TO STUDY THE DOCUMENT WE HAD PROVIDED AND HE COULD NOT EXCLUDE THE POSSIBILITY THAT THEY MIGHT WISH TO COMMENT IN DUE COURSE. HE HOPED THE BRITISH SIDE WOULD CONTINUE TO KEEP THE CHINESE SIDE INFORMED AND TO WARN THEM AS EARLY AS POSSIBLE IF ANY DECISION WAS TO BE ANNOUNCED. HE HAD THOUGHT IT WISE TO CALL THIS AFTERNOON SINCE HE HAD SEEN COMMENTS BY THE ATTORNEY GENERAL IN THE PRESS THAT THE DOCUMENT WAS READY.

4. I THANKED WANG FOR HIS STATEMENT, NOTING THAT IN FACT WE HAD NOT EXPECTED COMMENTS FROM THE CHINESE SIDE, BUT WERE MERELY KEEPING THEM INFORMED. I WAS SURE WE WOULD CONTINUE TO DO THIS. HE KNEW OUR POSITION THAT THIS WAS A MATTER FOR HKG TO DECIDE ON ITS OWN IN CONSULTATION WITH THE HONG KONG LEGAL PROFESSION. IF THE CHINESE SIDE DID WISH TO MAKE ANY COMMENTS I HOPED THEY WOULD DO SO IN CONFIDENCE. IT WOULD DO NO GOOD IF THE HONG KONG PUBLIC FORMED THE IMPRESSION THAT THE CHINESE GOVERNMENT WERE EXERCISING INFLUENCE IN THIS MATTER. WANG AGREED THAT COOPERATION WAS IMPORTANT AND ACKNOWLEDGED THE NEED TO AVOID AN IMPRESSION OF PUBLIC DISPUTE ON THIS QUESTION.

MARTIN

PAGE 1 CONFIDENTIAL

Share This Page