XN000022-1994-04-21 — Page 6

THURSDAY, APRIL 21, 1994

JOINT

THIRDLY, ARE THESE THE ONLY TWO ARTICLES WHICH ARE AGAINST THE DECLARATION? FOR EXAMPLE ARTICLE 17, THIS HAS SOMETHING TO DO WITH ENACTING LEGISLATION IN HONG KONG. THE NPCSC WILL HAVE THE FINAL VETO POWER. DO YOU THINK THAT THIS IS AGAINST THE JOINT DECLARATION?

OF

FOURTHLY,

APPEAL. DECLARATION?

THE JLG HAS REACHED AN AGREEMENT ON THE FINAL COURT DO YOU THINK THAT THAT DECISION IS AGAINST THE JOINT

GOVERNOR: PERHAPS BRIEFLY 1 CAN TRY TO PERSUADE THE HONOURABLE MEMBER THAT CHRISTMAS HAS COME EARLY AND ANSWER ALL FOUR OF HIS QUESTIONS RATHER THAN JUST ONE OF THEM.

PERHAPS I CAN REMIND HONOURABLE MEMBERS WHAT ARTICLES 18 AND 158 OF THE BASIC LAW ACTUALLY SAY BECAUSE THOSE ARE THE TWO ARTICLES IN QUESTION AND THEY ARE THE TWO ON WHICH THE FOREIGN AFFAIRS SELECT COMMITTEE HAVE FOCUSED.

ARTICLE BASIC LAW 18 IS ABOUT INTERVENTIONS IN HONG KONG IN THE CASE OF TURMOIL IN HONG KONG. I THINK THAT HONOURABLE MEMBERS ARE PROBABLY FAMILIAR WITH THE ARTICLE IN QUESTION. THE OTHER ARTICLE CONCERNS THE POWER OF INTERPRETATION OF THE NPC STANDING COMMITTEE.

THE POSITION WHICH THE BRITISH GOVERNMENT HAS TAKEN UP FROM THE OUTSET IS THAT THERE IS A VERY FUNDAMENTAL DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE JOINT DECLARATION AND THE BASIC LAW. THE JOINT DECLARATION [S AN INTERNATIONAL AND BINDING TREATY BETWEEN TWO SOVEREIGN POWERS. THE BASIC LAW IS A LAW PASSED BY THE NPC OF ONE OF THOSE SOVEREIGN POWERS AND WAS NOT THE SUBJECT OF NEGOTIATION BETWEEN BRITAIN AND CHINA, THOUGH BRITAIN DID AT VARIOUS POINTS MAKE KNOWN THE SORT OF OUTCOME IT WOULD LIKE TO SEE IN THE BASIC LAW AND MADE IT CLEAR THAT THERE WERE SOME PIECES OF DRAFTING WHICH IT WOULD HAVE PREFERRED TO HAVE BEEN DIFFERENT. I THINK THAT TOUCHED BOTH ARTICLE 18 AND ARTICLE 158 AMONG OTHERS.

OUR POSITION IS THAT IF ARTICLES 18 OR 158 OF THE BASIC LAW WERE USED ΤΟ UNDERMINE THE AUTONOMY OF THE HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION, THAT WOULD BE IN CONTRAVENTION OF THE JOINT DECLARATION. BUT I'M SURE THAT AS THE CHINESE AUTHORITIES HAVE SAID AGAIN AND AGAIN THEY INTEND TO COMPLY WITH THE TERMS

OF

THE JOINT DECLARATION AND THEREFORE WOULDN'T USE THE BASIC LAW IN A WAY WHICH CONTRADICTED THE TERMS OF THE JOINT DECLARATION. I THINK THOSE ARE ARGUMENTS WHICH ARE PROBABLY FAMILIAR TO THE HONOURABLE GENTLEMAN. I'M SORRY THAT THE ANXIETIES STILL EXIST AND I HOPE THAT CHINESE OFFICIALS AS WELL AS BRITISH OFFICIALS WILL BE ABLE TO PUT THE HONOURABLE MEMBER'S MIND AT REST AND THOSE MINDS OF OTHER MEMBERS

THE COMMUNITY.

OF

THE

THAT

THE

AS FOR THE AGREEMENT ON THE CFA, THE GOVERNMENT DOES TAKE VIEW THAT IT'S IN LINE WITH THE JOINT DECLARATION. 1 DARESAY WE'LL HAVE OPPORTUNITIES OF DEBATING THE COURT OF FINAL APPEAL IN COMING MONTHS AND THIS COUNCIL WILL IN DUE COURSE HAVE TO MAKE EFFECT A CRUCIAL DECISION AS TO WHETHER WE GET A COURT OF FINAL APPEAL UP AND RUNNING BEFORE 1997 OR NOT.

1N

/MR SIMON IP: