CONFIDENTIAL
AKE C12/3
CONFIDENTIAL
FM FCO
TO IMMEDIATE HONG KONG
TELNO 1009
OF 28170OZ MAY 91
INFO ROUTINE PEKING, UKREP JLG HONG KONG
(ع)
12.
07.1402 MDHOAN 4269
YOUR TELNO 1673: PUBLIC ORDER ORDINANCE (PO0)
1. WE STILL HAVE STRONG RESERVATIONS ABOUT THE TIMING OF THE PROPOSED AMENDMENTS.
2.
THE AGUMENT IN PARAGRAPH 2 OF TUR IS A NEW ONE WHICH WAS NOT BROUGHT OUT IN YOUR PREVIOUS TELEGRAM. YOU INDICATED (IN PARAGRAPH 2 OF YOUR TELNO 1457) THAT THE POLICE MANAGED THE SITUATION ON THE GROUND IN A FLEXIBLE MANNER AND DID NOT INVOKE THE MORE CONTROVERSIAL PROVISIONS OF THE ORDINANCE. IF THOSE PROVISIONS REMAIN UNUSED, THE POSSIBILITY OF A LEGAL CHALLENGE IS SURELY CONSIDERABLY DIMINISHED.
3.
THE CHINESE ARE
BOUND TO SEE A LINK BETWEEN THE POO AMENDMENTS AND THE BILL OF RIGHTS. THEY WILL CONCLUDE THAT, BECAUSE WE EXPECTED THEM TO OPPOSE THE POO AMENDMENTS, WE HAVE TRIED TO INTRODUCE THEM SURREPTITIOUSLY. THIS WOULD NOT BODE WELL FOR THE CHINESE REACTION TO ENACTMENT TO THE BILL OF RIGHTS. ALTHOUGH THE AMENDMENTS WOULD BE INTRODUCED AFTER ENACTMENT, AS UKREP JLG POINT OUT WE WOULD ENVISAGE INFORMING THE CHINESE BEFORE/BEFORE ENACTMENT OF THE BILL OF RIGHTS. WE HAVE EXPENDED CONSIDERABLE ENERGY OVER RECENT MONTHS IN PERSUADING THE CHINESE TO TAKE AT LEAST A NON-COMMITAL ATTITUDE TO THE BILL OF RIGHTS ON ENACTMENT. THERE ARE INDICATIONS THAT WE MIGHT ACHIEVE THIS. THIS ACHIEVEMENT WOULD BE SERIOUSLY JEOPARDISED IF THE POO AMENDMENTS WENT AHEAD ON THE PROPOSED TIMING.
MOREOVER, WE CONTINUE TO THINK IT UNWISE TO BASE THE TIMING OF SUCH A CONTROVERSIAL DECISION ON THE POSSIBLE COMPOSITION OF
4.
1
PAGE
CONFIDENTIAL
Redacted under FOI exemption 27(1),