CONFIDENTIAL
The Chinese made clear on each occasion that the questioning
of stationing troops had been settled in the JD and that the
numbers and location of troops to be stationed in the SAR were sovereign matters for the Chinese.
4.
It is highly unlikely that the Chinese would ever agree
to limit their own future freedom of movement by making a
public statement about their intentions. But we hoped that
they would at least refrain from publicly reaffirming their
right to station troops. Whether through our efforts, or
simply because the issue had seized to topical in Hong Kong, the Chinese have not said anything unhelpful for some
months. We would propose to revert to the subject in the
context of JLG discussions on defence lands, when we will
stress that there is little practical need for a large and
prominent PLA presence in Hong Kong after 1997. But we believe it would be counterproductive to revert to the issue
before then.
Amendments to Basic Law
(Present position is that some amendments need the consent of ExCo/LegCo before being submitted to the NPC. Does this
go far enough?)
5. Under Article 159, the NPC has the power of amendment of Basic Law. The power to propose Bills of amendment is vested in (a) the Standing Committee of the NPC, (b) the
State Council, and (c) the SAR. There is additional
provision relating to Bills proposed by the SAR. Such Bills
require the consent of two-thirds of all the members of the
Legislative Council, and the Chief Executive of the Region,
as well as two-thirds of the Deputies of the Region to the
NPC. There is no provision for consent by ExCo. The
requirement that two-thirds of the members of the
Legislative Council, together with the Chief Executive, should consent to Bills is a welcome provision as ensuring
that a Bill emanating from the SAR must have local approval.
CONFIDENTIAL