directly. The Department will also ensure that
Mr Sparkes is informed well in advance in the
highly unlikely event that any disturbance to the plots
may be envisaged.
I hope that this will be of some comfort to
Mrs Morris.
Earl of Caithness
Miss Williams
HKD
FROM:
Miss S Brooks
Legal Counsellor
DATE:
28 January 1992
HKA 22571
attached.
CEMETERIES IN HONG KONG
1. I refer to your draft letter which is to be sent by Lord Caithness in reply to the letter from Mr Rathbone, MP of 16 January. There are no provisions either in the Joint Declaration or in the Basic Law which are of direct relevance to the question of Hong Kong cemeteries, military or otherwise. Nor has this issue been discussed with the Chinese side in the Joint Liaison Group.
2. The problem is that we have too little information to provide an adequate reply. We do not, for example, know whether cemeteries are public property or whether burial plots are privately owned or even leased. Nor do we know whether there is an Ordinance which deals with the question of cemeteries. I have looked through my small stock of Ordinances and have found nothing of relevance. Since we do not know what Ordinances, if any, have a bearing on this matter, Article 53 of the Joint Declaration about the maintenance of the laws previously in force in Hong Kong after the establishment of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region does not seem to me to be of relevance.
3. The provision which may be of most relevance is Article 7 of the Basic Law, assuming that Hong Kong cemeteries are public property. However, Article 7 offers little comfort since it provides that the land and natural resources within the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region shall be State property; in other words, property of the People's Republic of China. We do not even know that the Director of Urban Services in the Special Administrative Region will remain the authority for public cemeteries in Hong Kong, including the Hong Kong cemetery although this may well be the case.
4. We discussed just now whether we should advise Lord Caithness to send a holding reply while we find out more information from Hong Kong, or whether we should try to draft a reply using anodyne comfort language. If, having talked to Mr Stone, you decide on the latter course, I suggest that a possible line to take might be that the
AELACI
pa.pl (5)
}
relevant department in Hong Kong Government has been
consulted and has given assurances that there are no plans for any change of policy with respect to burials in the Hong Kong cemetery after 1997.
aelaci
AELACI
Shelagh Brooks
Shelagh Brooks Legal Counsellor