TNAG-1283-FCO40-1635-Constitutional-development-in-Hong-Kong-1984 — Page 160

16

See

SECRET

EM PEKING 2710302 SẠN SA

TO IMMEDIATE FCO

SECRET

TELEGRAM NUMBER 161 OF 27TH JAN 84

INFO IMMEDIATE HONG KONG

4 6·⋅

HRR 011/3

PRECEIVED IN REGISTRY

30 JAN 1984

DESK OFFICER

INDEX

TO

YOUR TELNOS 93 AND 94 TO HONG KONG: FUTURE OF HONG KONG: WORKING PAPER ON CONSTITUTIONAL ARRANGEMENTS AND CENTRAL GOVERNMENT STRUCTURES.

REGIS

4 IKER

1. WE SEE SOME PROBLEMS WITH THE DRAFT. IN PARTICULAR PARAGRAPH 6 AS DRAFTED COMES CLOSE TO CHALLENGING THE PREMISE

THAT SOVEREIGNTY AND THE RIGHT OF ADMINISTRATION WOULD REVERT

TO CHINA. IT IS PARTICULARLY IMPORTANT NOT TO OVERBID ON THIS

PAPER.

2. I SHOULD ALSO LIKE TO SEE THE ANNEX ON FLAGS DROPPED

FROM THIS PAPER. IT IS AN ISSIE OF GREAT SENSITIVITY BUT LITTLE INTRINSIC IMPORTANCE. THE ANNEX AS DRAFTED APPEARS TO SUGGEST THAT THE CHINESE FLAG WOULD, IN PRACTICE, BE FLOWN ONLY IN THE SAME WAY AS THE FLAGS OF OTHER COUNTRIES. I QUESTION WHETHER THIS IS WISE OR NECESSARY. IF HONG KONG, HOWEVER AUTONOMOUS, IS TO BE PART OF CHINA, IT IS NOT LOGICAL TO SEEK TO LIMIT THE FLYING OF THE CHINESE FLAG THERE. THE BEST WE CAN HOPE FOR IS PERHAPS THAT THE CHINESE AND THE HONG KONG FLAGS WOULD FLY TOGETHER ON HONG KONG GOVERNMENT BUILDINGS. HOWEVER, THIS ISSUE IS SO EMOTIVE THAT WE STRONGLY ADVISE THAT IT SHOULD BE LEFT FOR LATER DISCUSSION.

3. OUR DETAILED COMMENTS ARE AS FOLLOWS:

(1) PREAMBLE: WE WOULD PREFER TO REFER TO THE CHINESE **PLAN** RATHER THAN 'PROPOSALS, AS IN OTHER RECENT PAPERS,

(811) PARAGRAPH 2: (A) WE SHOULD REFER TO THE PROPOSED DURATION OF 50 YEARS FOR THE BASIC LAW. THIS COULD BE ADDED

TO THE FIRST SENTENCE OF THE PARAGRAPH.

་ ་

(B) SINCE WE ARE REFERRING TO THE APPOINTMENT OF CHIEF OFFICIALS IN THE IMPLICATIONS' SECTION OF THE PAPER, THE CORRESPONDING PASSAGE IN THE CHINESE PLAN OUGHT SURELY TO

APPEAR IN THE FIRST SECTION.

**INCLUSION**

(111) PARAGRAPH 5: WE WILL GET BETTER CHANGE OOUT OF THE CHINESE IF WE REFER TO REPLACEMENT OF ELEMENTS OF THE LETTERS PATENT, POYAL INSTRUCTIONS AND COLONIAL REGULATIONS BY SIMILAR PROVISIONS, RATHER THAN THE OF PARTS OF THEM IN THE BASIC LAW. THIS IS PRESENTATIONAL, BUT PRESENTATION IS IMPORTANT. WE SUGGEST THAT THE SECOND SENTENCE BE RIDRAFTED ALONG THE FOLLOWING LINES:

...THOSE INSTRUMENTS WHICH MIGHT BE RELEVANT TO THE GOVERNMENT OF THE HONG KONG SAR WOULD DE REPLACED BY SIMILAR PROVISIONS IN THE BASIC LAW TO BE ENACTED BY THE NPC

FOR THE SAR OR

SECRET

/(IU)