CONFIDENTIAL
HKD2411
CONFIDENTIAL
FM HONG KONG
TO DESKBY 17133OZ FCO
TELNO 2248
90
OF 171211Z JULY 90
RY
23 JUL 1990
ISTI
mt fifort
minute.
un Taken
INFO IMMEDIATE UKREP JLG HONG KONG, PEKING
عام
180
243
154404
MDHIAN 9135
TOP COPY Q DIST?
OUR TELNOS 2136 AND 2219 AND YOUR TELNO 1203: BILL OF RIGHTS
EXCO'S DECISIONS THIS MORNING ON THE ISSUES RAISED IN THE EXCO MEMORANDUM (FAXED TO YOU ON 16 JULY) WERE AS FOLLOWS:
A)
B)
C)
D)
E)
INTERPRETATION
TO DELETE CLAUSE 2(3)(B).
-
OBLIGATIONS BETWEEN INDIVIDUALS TO DEFER ONLY THE APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 14 IN RESPECT OF OBLIGATIONS BETWEEN INDIVIDUALS, AND TO GIVE A CLEAR PUBLIC STATEMENT ON THE LIKELIHOOD OF MINIMUM LEGAL EFFECTS OF ARTICLES 16 AND 22 ON THE PRIVATE SECTOR.
www
IMPLICATIONS OF ARTICLE 14 FOR THE GOVERNMENT NO DEFERMENT OF THIS ARTICLE IN RESPECT OF GOVERNMENT.
ARTICLE 21 TO MAKE THE APPLICATION OF THIS ARTICLE AS WIDE AS POSSIBLE BY REPLACING ''CITIZEN'' WITH ''RESIDENT'' WITH A COMMITMENT TO ADD ''PERMANENT'' BEFORE 1997 TO CONFORM TO THE BASIC LAW AND SUBJECT TO FURTHER THOUGHT IF WE COME UP WITH A BETTER FORMULATION.
N.T. POLICIES
C
ACCEPTED OUR RECOMMENDATION IN PARA. 60 OF EXCO MEMORANDUM XCC(90)100 (FAXED TO YOU ON 10 JULY).
66?
2.
ON (D), WE HAVE SINCE COME UP WITH THE VIEW THAT IT WOULD MAKE MOST SENSE TO USE THE EXPRESSION QUOTE EVERY PERMANENT RESIDENT UNQUOTE FROM THE START. THE TERM IS SUFFICIENTLY BROAD BASED AND IT ADOPTS THE LANGUAGE OF ARTICLE 24 OF THE BASIC LAW. THERE CAN BE NO CAUSE FOR OBJECTION FROM THE CHINESE THAT IT WOULD BE INCONSISTENT WITH ARTICLE 26 OF THE BASIC LAW.
3. THE PRINCIPAL OBJECTION TO THIS FORMULATION IS THAT IT DOES NOT ENSHRINE THE RIGHTS OF CERTAIN QUOTE CITIZENS UNQUOTE BEFORE 1997 I.E., UK EXPATRIATES WHO NOW HAVE THE VOTE BUT WHO DO NOT YET COME WITHIN THE NEW DEFINITION SINCE THE LAW HAS NOT YET BEEN AMENDED TO
1
PAGE CONFIDENTIAL