CONFIDENTIAL
065164
0
MDHIAN
4. CHEN REPEATED THAT THE PERIOD FOR SOLICITATION OF PUBLIC OPINION HAD ENDED AND THAT THE FINAL DRAFT WAS NOW WITH THE N P C. AS TO THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE CONSTITUTION AND THE BASIC LAW, RELEVANT PROVISIONS EXISTED IN THE DRAFT. CHEN REFUSED TO
ELUCIDATE.
5. I SAID THAT I UNDERSTOOD THAT THE TIME FOR COLLECTING OPINIONS HAD PASSED. BUT EVEN THOUGH THE DRAFTERS HAD FINISHED THEIR WORK, MY UNDERSTANDING WAS THAT THE BASIC LAW WAS STILL IN DRAFT FORM. THERE WAS PRESUMABLY STILL A POSSIBILITY THAT EXPERTS ON THE N P C STANDING COMMITTEE COULD CONSIDER OUR POINTS. DID THE LEGISLATORS NOT HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO SUGGEST FURTHER AMENDMENTS TO THE DRAFT ? CHEN RESPONDED THAT THE PERIOD FOR CANVASSING PUBLIC OPINION WAS OVER. CHINA AND BRITAIN HAD HAD MANY CONTACTS. FIFOOT HAD VISITED THE CHINESE LEGAL EXPERTS ON MANY OCCASIONS.
6.
•
TURNING TO ARTICLE 24(4) I SAID THAT THIS PRESENTED A PRACTICAL PROBLEM. THE FACT THAT THE PERIOD OF PUBLIC CONSULTATION WAS OVER DID NOT REMOVE IT. I INVITED CHEN TO TELL ME HOW THE CHINESE AUTHORITIES AND THE N P C VIEWED THE PROBLEM WE HAD DRAWN TO THEIR ATTENTION. CHEN COMMENTED THAT IF THE PEOPLE WE HAD IN MIND WERE BDTCS, THEY WOULD BE REGARDED BY CHINA AS BRITISH NATIONALS. I SAID THAT WHILE THE PEOPLE WE WERE CONCERNED ABOUT WOULD HOLD HONG KONG IDENTIFICATION DOCUMENTS, THERE WOULD BE THOSE WHO DID NOT HOLD PASSPORTS OR TRAVEL DOCUMENTS. I THEN DREW ON THE EXAMPLES IN ANSWER 7 OF THE DEFENSIVE BRIEF. I SAID THAT FIFOOT HAD PUT FORWARD SIMILAR POINTS BUT I NOW INVITED THE CHINESE SIDE TO CONSIDER THEM FURTHER IN THE LIGHT OF THE TWO EXAMPLES I HAD JUST GIVEN. CHEN SAID THAT THE LATEST DRAFT OF THE BASIC LAW CONTAINED A NUMBER OF PRINCIPLES AND DETAILED PROVISIONS. THESE WOULD NOT GO INTO EFFECT UNTIL 1 JULY 1997. HE THOUGHT WE COULD FIND SOLUTIONS TO THE SPECIFIC PROBLEMS I HAD MENTIONED. HE THEN SUGGESTED THAT I SHOULD OBTAIN FURTHER INFORMATION FROM OUR LEGAL EXPERTS. SPECIFICALLY, HE DID NOT KNOW PRECISELY WHAT DISCUSSION HAD TAKEN PLACE ON ARTICLE 24(4) DURING FIFOOT'S LAST MEETING WITH SHAO. HE ASKED ME TO CHECK ON THE BACKGROUND TO THIS. I SAID THAT I WOULD TRY TO DO SO, PROVIDED CHEN DREW THE ATTENTION OF THE CHINESE SIDE'S LEGAL EXPERTS TO THE PROBLEMS I HAD JUST OUTLINED. IN THE CASE OF ARTICLE 24(4), WE HAD IDENTIFIED A LOOPHOLE THROUGH WHICH INJUSTICES COULD OCCUR.
7"
CHEN CONCLUDED BY SAYING THAT ONE THING WAS CERTAIN: AFTER 1997, HONG KONG WOULD BE RUN 'IN A CAPITALISTIC WAY''. THERE