XN000022-1997-01-30 — Page 9

Governor: The Government knows what the view of the Governor of Hong Kong is on this subject. So do members of the House of Commons and I would be surprised if my views weren't quoted fairly frequently when the issue is debated in the House of the Commons.

Question: How do the proposals of the Preparatory Committee violate the Joint Declaration and the Basic Law?

Governor: I've set out at length the Bar Association and the Law Society have set out at length just why the proposals infringe and undermine the Joint Declaration and the Basic Law. But there is one simple point which perhaps best describes that. In the Joint Declaration and the Basic Law, the International Covenants and what they say about freedom and political rights, those International Covenants are to be applied to Hong Kong, they are to be applied to Hong Kong through the Basic Law. Now what is being proposed by the Preparatory Committee are measures which would be in flagrant disregard of the International Covenants. You can't put back on the statue book Bills which have been taken off the statute book because they are not in line with the International Covenants without contravening the International Covenants. Everybody in Hong Kong knows that this is an extremely simple issue which goes as the Bar Association has pointed out as the leaders of the legal profession of Hong Kong have pointed out which goes right to the heart of the rule of law and right to the heart of the protection of our civil liberties. These aren't marginal issues. If they were marginal issues, why do you think that President Clinton of the United States would be concerned about them. He is not misinformed about what is going on in Hong Kong. He is doubtless told what people like the leaders of our legal profession say. Is it being argued that the chairman of the Bar Association is misleading people? Is it being argued that the Law Society is misleading people? Is it being argued that those distinguished lawyers who wrote in this morning's papers with their views on this issue are misleading people? The fact of the matter is that these would be damaging proposals indeed. I want to say one thing finally. Either Hong Kong has the same freedoms after 1997 or it doesn't? If it doesn't, then that is clearly a departure from the Joint Declaration and from the Basic Law and from all those promises which have been made to people in Hong Kong. So the question to ask people is this: Is Hong Kong going to have the same freedom after 1997? Yes or no? That is a question which I am going to go on asking and I suspect it is a question which you are going to go on asking as well. Thank you very much.

Question: Mr Hanley, one question. Does the British Government fully in support or stand up for what Mr Patten just said?