CODE 18-77
RESTRICTED
Reference
Ι
compatible with the ICCPR. [I doubt that their views are legally correct. I also consider paragraph 18 of the ExCo paper XCC (90) 112 to be factually misleading in that it ascribes views to HMG which have never been expressed.] We ought at least to ensure that paragraph 18 is not repeated publicly in the same
terms.
5.
As far as the relevance of Mr Walker's paper to the future application of CEDAW to Hong Kong is concerned, I am not sure that it has much. The main point which emerges from it is that information provided in the past by HKG to HMG concerning the compatibility of HK law with Article 26 ICCPR was
misleading in that it failed to take account of NT customary land rights and government NT policies. The most serious inadequacy is, in my view, the fact that the Governor's statements of 1974 and 1975 (see paragraphs 13-15 of Mr Walker's minute)
to the effect that the Intestates' Estates Ordinance 1971 abolished the inequality of males and females, etc, omitted reference to section 11 of that Ordinance, which provides that it shall not apply to land to which the NT Ordinance 1971 applies.
If you wish to tack on to this telegram a reminder that we are still awaiting a response from them on CEDAW, it might be better to do so by reference to our telno 1213, which ties together the ICCPR and the CEDAW issues.
Will Banett
Jill Barrett
Legal Advisers
13 November 1990
GENABS
RESTRICTED