TNAG-1355-FCO40-1796-Constitutional-development-in-Hong-Kong-1985 — Page 38

CONFIDENTIAL

17019

1

FACT, RESTRICT THE SUBJECT OF DEBATE AT LEAST SO FAR AS PENDING

COURT CASES, THE CONDUCT OF THE QUEEN AND OF VARIOUS

FUNCTIONARIES IS CONCERNED. BUT NOTHING IN THAT STANDING ORDER

WOULD TOUCH ON ANYTHING LIKE THE BASIC LAW.

4.

TURNING TO THE POLITICAL ASPECTS, WE SEE TWO POSSIBLE

DANGERS IN AN ATTEMPT TO DEBAR SUCH A MOTION:

A)

B)

5.

IT WOULD ALMOST CERTAINLY AROUSE STRONG PRESS OPPOSITION

(MUZZLING OF FREE SPEECH, CONNIVANCE WITH CHINESE IN DOING SO ETC):

IF A MOTION ON THE BASIC LAW WERE DEBARRED, A QUESTION OF

WHETHER LEGCO COULD DEBATE A MATTER SUCH AS THE

NATIONALITY ORDER IN COUNCIL, WHICH LEGISLATIVELY FALLS

WITHIN THE EXCLUSIVE COMPETENCE OF THE WESTMINSTER

PARLIAMENT, COULD BE RAISED. WHILE THIS DANGER IS NOT

GREAT, THERE ARE LIKELY TO BE OTHER MATTERS OF A

POLITICAL NATURE BETWEEN NOW AND 1997 WHICH WILL BE OF

CONSIDERABLE INTERST TO HONG KONG'S INHABITANTS, WHICH

COULD ARGUABLY BE SAID TO BE OUT OF ORDER FOR DEBATE IN

LEGCO, BUT WHICH WE WOULD NEVERTHELESS NOT WISH TO DEBAR

THE COUNCIL FROM DEBATING.

SET AGAINST THESE DANGERS MUST OF COURSE BE THE ATTITUDE

OF THE CHINESE. THEY WILL PRESUMABLY CONSIDER IT INAPPROPRIATE

IN GENERAL FOR LEGCO TO DEBATE THE BASIC LAW. THE TERMS OF ANY

MOTION MIGHT SOFTEN THIS ATTITUDE A LITTLE BUTNOT, WE SUSPECT, A

LOT.

6.

I)

II)

III)

SEEN FROM HERE, A POSSIBLE COURSE MIGHT BE:

TO ALLOW A DEBATE IF THERE IS CONTINUING AND SUBSTANTIAL

PRESSURE FOR ONE:

FOR THE CHIEF SECRETARY TO STATE DURING THE DEBATE THE

VIEW OF THE GOVERNMENT THAT THE DRAFTING OF THE BASIC LAW

IS A MATTER FOR THE CHINESE GOVERNMENT, AND FOR OTHER

OFFICIAL MEMBERS TO ABSTAIN FROM PARTICIPATING IN THE

DEBATE:

FOR US TO EXPLAIN OUR DECISION TO ALLOW A DEBATE AND THE

INTENTIONS OF THE GOVERNMENT SPOKESMAN DURING IT TO THE

CHINESE IMMEDIATELY AFTER A DECISION ON THE DEBATE WAS

2

CONFIDENTIAL