1
Page 45, Paragraph 43: We have some difficulty with the final sentence of this paragraph. Our public line on these articles was that the objectives in themselves were laudable ones and it was legitimate to have articles which direct attention to the desirability of those objectives. We understood that the draftsman intended them as guidelines and not as a normative provision. If pressed, we were prepared to agree that the drafting could be improved. It follows that we have difficulty with a view which states baldly that these provisions are in contravention of the Joint Declaration. We should prefer wording such as "they do not sit happily with express provisions ....".
Page 48, Paragraph 49: "It is legitimate to assert that "defence" includes internal defence" is presented as a neutral statement with which not everyone would agree in this context. Again, it would be helpful if you were to attribute this to the Chinese as their likely attitude.
Page 51, Paragraph 54: We are unhappy with the sentence "it is clear that the Hong Kong administration has been unwilling adequately to consult .... Whether or not attempts to consult or cooperate with the Chinese have been adequate is not something which is necessarily clear to the outside observer. To make a categorical statement would, I think, be drawing on your experience in the office. We should be happy for you to begin this sentence with "there have been accusations that " or a similar formulation. Later in the same paragraph, we should prefer you to delete the words "and which the present administration sees as a necessary adjunct to it". This is not the primary reason for introducing a Bill of Rights, though the Chinese have critised us on that basis, and we should therefore prefer not to have this motive attributed to the Hong Kong Government.
Page 52, Paragraph 54: We would not say that the MOU on the airport means that we recognise China as representing the future SAR and would prefer not to have that view attributed to us. Instead, the relevant sentence could read "... which was announced on 4 July 1991 demonstrates recognition that China, as future sovereign power for the SAR, has an interest
•
11
Notes page 10, note 61: Knowledge about when and how we consulted the Chinese would not be available to an outside observer to enable them to judge whether China's resentment was understandable or not. We might overcome this difficulty by rephrasing "though the Chinese have expressed resentment at not being adequately consulted before the publication of the first draft of the Bill which was clearly related to the Basic Law". After publication of the first draft, we did consult.
RIDAMN