CONFIDENTIAL
031415
AN 0503,
1
THEREFORE THINK IT WOULD BE A GOOD IDEA TO REFER TO THE UNDERTAKING ON SUBVERSION WHEN BRIEFING THE CHINESE (PARA 4 OF TUR) AS THIS WILL ONLY PROVOKE THE REOPENING OF A DEBATE ON WHICH THERE SIMPLY WILL BE NO MEETING OF MINDS.
4.
ON PARA 7 OF PEKING TUR, THE EXISTING SECTION 6(2)(A) ALLOWS THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE, AFTER CONSULTING THE CHIEF SECRETARY, TO REFUSE TO REGISTER A SOCIETY WHICH IS CONNECTED WITH AN ORGANISATION OF A POLITICAL NATURE OUTSIDE HONG KONG. IN THE CONTEXT OF THE BOR, THIS POWER IS TOO WIDE AND SHOULD BE LIMITED TO CASES WHERE THE INTERESTS OF SECURITY AND PUBLIC ORDER, ETC. SO REQUIRE, AS SPECIFIED IN THE BOR AND ICCPR. HOWEVER, THE ADVICE WE HAVE RECEIVED IS THAT THIS WILL STILL PERMIT GROUPS WITH POLITICAL LINKS OUTSIDE HONG KONG TO BE PROHIBITED WHERE THEIR EXISTENCE WOULD SERIOUSLY DAMAGE OUR RELATIONS WITH CHINA. THE JUDGEMENT ON THIS WOULD REST WITH HKG. OUR POWERS IN RESPECT OF SUCH GROUPS WILL THUS IN PRACTICE BE RETAINED. WE WOULD NOT OF COURSE MENTION TO THE CHINESE THE CRITERION OF 'SERIOUS DAMAGE TO OUR RELATIONS WITH CHINA' SINCE THEY WOULD THEN ARGUE THAT THE HONG KONG ALLIANCE SHOULD BE BANNED. RATHER, WE WOULD EMPHASISE THAT THE CHANGE OF THE LAW WILL CONTINUE TO ALLOW US TO PROHIBIT A SOCIETY WHICH IS CONNECTED WITH AN ORGANISATION OF A POLITICAL NATURE OUTSIDE HONG KONG. THE STATUS QUO WILL THEREFORE BE PRESERVED.
5. THE RISK OF COURSE EXISTS THAT WITHOUT THE SPECIFIC REFERENCE IN THE LAW TO CONNECTIONS WITH OVERSEAS POLITICAL ORGANISATIONS THE CHINESE WILL ARGUE THAT IF WE CAN BAN OUTSIDE ORGANISATIONS SIMPLY ON GROUNDS OF PUBLIC ORDER/SAFETY, WHY DO WE NOT BAN THE HONG KONG ALLIANCE ON THOSE GROUNDS ?. WE WOULD THEN NEED TO REST ON OUR POLICY OF DRAWING A DISTINCTION BETWEEN INTERNAL AND EXTERNAL POLITICAL ORGANISATIONS.
6.
WE PLAN TO INFORM THE CHINESE OF THE PROPOSED AMENDMENTS AS SOON AS POSSIBLE AFTER THEY HAVE BEEN ENDORSED BY THE EXECUTIVE COUNCIL.
FORD
YYYY
PAGE 2 CONFIDENTIAL