TNAG-1440-FCO40-1924-Constitutional-development-in-Hong-Kong-1986 — Page 233

HRK 0!!!!

RECT

[

GISTR

- 8 APR 1986

DE:

INDEX

SECRET

ou/

PA Jul

201

TRY

PA

«Non Taken

FROM: PAUL FIFOOT

193

leave?

Mr Leeks, HKD

AB994.

Spoken 06 714

DEPUTY LEGAL ADVISER

DATE: 4 April 1986

Сс : Dr Wilson

Mr Hum Mr Wood

HONG KONG TELNOS 984-989 : REPRESENTATIVE GOVERNMENT

I have the following comments on this series of telegrams.

Telno 986 : Question of Convergence

a) The amendments in paragraphs 4, 4(A), 7, 17 and 29 appear to be in order and I have no particular view on the remaining minor amendments referred to in paragraph 5 of Hong Kong telno 985.

b) I am glad to see that Hong Kong have taken our point, if only "to a certain extent", with regard to the Executive.

It is, however, a little disappointing to note that they do not appear to have considered the consequences, or if they did consider them have not seen the need to make consequential amendments to, paragraphs 13, 14, 18(A), and 20. Notwithstanding the amendment to paragraph 12, is there not a possible source of confusion in the bare reference to the "Executive" in the later paragraphs? Would someone (perhaps the Chinese) who is not familiar with Hong Kong's wish to focus on the "Executive Council" ask himself whether the "Executive" in those later paragraphs meant the Executive Council or something else and, if it did mean the Executive Council, why did it not say so? The point I am making now is not so much a matter of substance (I am resigned, however reluctantly, to the fact that there appears to be a reluctance to recognise the potential width of the expression "Executive authority") but a point of presentation. I would have thought that from that point alone one would have needed as a minimum to include the word "Council" after the word "Executive" in paragraph 13, first line, paragraph 14, second line, paragraph 18 (A) and paragraph 20, fourth line. If these amendments were made I would see less problem about the omission of the word "Council" in paragraph 14, line 5, paragraph 18 (E) or paragraph 27.

c)

:

Paragraph 5(B) I would be inclined to share the doubts of EXCO about the two sentences in square brackets.

194)

195)

Telnos 987 and 988

196

leave

I have no comments on these two telegrams.

Telno 989

I found the order of the paragraphs under head (C) "Authority for the interpretation of Basic Law" somewhat confusing. I wonder if they would be better marshalled in the order 12, 14 and 15 to sub paragraph (C) followed by an amalgam of the remainder of paragraph 15 with paragraph 13.

/With