XN000022-1997-01-23 — Page 6

- 5 -

Governor: I noticed the report which the honourable gentleman refers to. I think, to be fair to the Chinese side, it represented, though it was not denied, the French Government's version of the meeting rather than the PRC Government's version of the meeting. But nevertheless, it sounded helpful and hopeful, and I think that the whole international community, and certainly people in Hong Kong, would greatly welcome any positive indication that the PRC was intent on becoming a signatory of the International Covenants. I think it would send a message of confidence to Hong Kong and would greatly please the international community.

That statement was completely at variance with the message which came out of the Legal Sub-committee to which I referred a moment or two ago, a message which - if I can borrow a word which perhaps has been over-used in the last 24 hours - a message which certainly shocked people in Hong Kong and shocked people outside Hong Kong as well.

-

But I just want to say this. These are recommendations recommendations - and I very much hope that wiser views will prevail. People very often say, "What is Britain or what is the international community going to do about this or that issue in Hong Kong?" And those are reasonable questions to put to a British Governor. But there are things that people in Hong Kong can do in this particular case, and one thing they could do is to recall what they have done and said in the past. I hope honourable members will bear with me if I recall some of the past discussions of human rights here in Hong Kong.

We look back to the Bill of Rights itself, the Bill of Rights which was agreed by an Executive Council containing many very distinguished members whose names I will recall to you in a few moments. During those debates, in the first debate - let me get the date right- on 27 June 1990, one speaker, Maria Tam, then a member of this Legislative Council, set out the issue on one question which has been raised in the last few days which she then dealt with extraordinarily cogently. Let me quote:

"There has been worry expressed as to the method of entrenchment and the question of supremacy. The convenor of the ad hoc group had already explained how the group dealt with the Administration's proposal of indirect entrenchment through amendment of the Letters Patent and the administrative measure that could be taken in later days to ensure that future legislation would not conflict with the Bill of Rights. This I regard as the best way to answer any worries that either the Bill of Rights will be superior to the Basic Law or override the interpretation of the Basic Law under Article 159."