CONFIDENTIAL
FM HONG KONG
TO PRIORITY FCO
TELNO 2477
CONFIDENTIAL
Mr Saunty
Lexx are lent.
HK should telegraph shartly. Mr Rifort
should of course be
counted.
OF 09103OZ AUGUST 90
(12
TOP COPY Q DIST?
INFO PRIORITY PEKING, UKREP JLG HONG KONG
INFO PRIORITY HONG KONG GOVERNMENT OFFICE LONDON
275
046161 MOLIAN 1868
HKD241
10 AUG 1990
1241/1
HKGO LONDON PERSONAL FOR YAXLEY
BILL OF RIGHTS : COMMENTS IN TA KUNG PAO
1. TA KUNG PAO COLUMNIST TONG YUK-HON HAS THIS WEEK WRITTEN A SERIES OF ARTICLES CRITICISING THE BILL OF RIGHTS. FOLLOWING ARE
THE MORE SALIENT POINTS :
COMPATIBILITY WITH THE BASIC LAW
2. THE UNDERLYING THEME OF THE ARTICLES WAS THE INCOMPATIBILITY OF THE BOR WITH PROVISIONS OF BL CHAPTER III, IN PARTICULAR THE RIGHTS ENJOYED BY DIFFERENT CATEGORIES OF RESIDENTS IN HONG KONG UNDER THE BL. TONG CLAIMED THAT THE ICCPR CONCERNED CITIZENS'
RIGHTS WHILE BOTH THE JD AND BL PROVIDED FOR THE RIGHTS OF HONG KONG INHABITANTS. NONE OF THESE DOCUMENTS TALKED ABOUT HUMAN RIGHTS (RENQUAN). AS HONG KONG WAS NOT AN INDEPENDENT SOVEREIGN STATE, IT WOULD NOT BE APPROPRIATE TO ADOPT THE TERM ''HUMAN RIGHTS LAW'' (RENQUAN FA) WHICH WOULD APPLY TO PEOPLE OF THE WHOLE WORLD.
3. TONG SAID THAT THE BL PROVIDED CLEAR GUARANTEES ON THE RIGHTS OF SAR PEOPLE ACCORDING TO THEIR NATIONALITY, PLACE AND DURATION OF RESIDENCE, PLACE OF BIRTH AND TRADITIONS. FOR EXAMPLE, A CLEAR DISTINCTION WAS MADE BETWEEN PERMANENT AND NON-PERMANENT RESIDENTS. THE FORMER GROUP WAS FURTHER DIVIDED INTO CHINESE AND NON-CHINESE CITIZENS. THEIR POLITICAL RIGHTS WERE NOT EXACTLY THE SAME. ART. 1 AND 21 OF THE BOR HOWEVER PROVIDED THAT PEOPLE REGARDLESS OF NATIONALITY AND PLACE OF BIRTH SHOULD ENJOY EQUAL
RIGHTS TO VOTE AND TO BE ELECTED: THIS CLEARLY CONTRAVENED THE
BL.
4. SUCH GENERALISATION IN THE GUARANTEE OF RIGHTS, ACCORDING TO TONG, WOULD IN EFFECT LEAD TO A REDUCTION IN THESE RIGHTS. FOR EXAMPLE, NT INDIGENOUS RESIDENTS WOULD LOSE THEIR CUSTOMARY RIGHTS UNDER ART 1 AND 22 OF THE BOR.
1
PAGE CONFIDENTIAL