CONFIDENTIAL
Faxed to Mr Suen. CAB
From:
Mr Galworthy UKREP ILG Mr Crates Peking.
Paul Fifoot
Legal Advisers
Date: 5 July 1990
CC
Mr McLaren
Fco Telno
1260 refers.
Mr Burns
Mr Paul, HKD Ms Barrett o/r
ра
pa Pm617
Ms Major, HKD
HKD 241/1
12 JUL 1990
RY
:
198
HONG KONG BILL OF RIGHTS
Summary
1.
GISTRY
ACHGE Jhon
(a) Clauses 7(3) and 14 clearly demonstrate the present inability of Hong Kong to bring into force a Bill'of Rights which is effective and, therefore, call into question proceeding with the Bill now;
(b) A policy of inaction as respects the possibility of the Bill affecting the rights of the inhabitants of the New Territories would not be consistent with the responsibilities of an Administration;
(c) There remain other defects, some more significant than others, and we should urge the Hong Kong Government to remedy them.
General Points
2. I have now had an opportunity of reading the ExCo Memorandum in the 3 July 1990 version and the Bill attached to it. There are some changes from the Memorandum dated 29 June.
3. It is apparent on the face of the amended Bill, and to a far greater extent than on the White Bill, that Hong Kong has a great deal to do before it is in a position to bring into force a law which does in fact implement the ICCPR. Two provisions, Clause 7 (3) and Clause 14, demonstrate that so far as party and party rights are concerned (ie. the
obligations of individuals to each other),
Hong Kong has no safeguards as regards the protection of privacy, family, home, correspondence, etc (and paragraphs 32 to 39 of the Memorandum also indicate a further paucity of safeguards as regards freedom of opinion and discrimination both as regards party and party rights and as regards governmental obligations), and that overall it is considered unsafe to chance testing existing legislation against the Bill of Rights. It is clear that this state of affairs is
3PFAAC
CONFIDENTIAL
Page 225Page 226