CONFIDENTIAL
(A) THE CHINESE MIGHT WELL OBJECT, ON THE GROUNDS THAT THEY WOULD PREFER TO SEE SUCH POWERS RETAINED.
(3) SOME PROVISIONS IN THE ORDINANCE, NOTABLY THOSE COVERING REGISTRATION OF PUBLICATIONS, ARE A PRACTICAL NECESSITY.
(C) IN A POTENTIALLY DIFFICULT PERIOD, IT WOULD BE PREFERABLE TO MAINTAIN SUCH POWERS.
(D) REPEAT MIGHT BE SEEN AS A CLUMSY ATTEMPT TO RECOVER GROUND LOST DURING THE ARGUMENTS OVER THE LEGCO POWERS AND PRIVILEGES BILL.
(E) ONCE THE SUBJECT HAD BEEN OPENED UP THERE COULD BE CALLS FOR WIDER REFORMS CONNECTED WITH CONTROLS ON PRESS AND
PUBLICATION.
4. SOME PUBLIC ATTENTION HAS ALREADY BEEN FOCUSSED ON THIS ORDINANCE, WITH THE POINT BEING MADE SPECIFICALLY THAT, IF IT REMAINED IN FORCE AFTER 1997, THERE WOULD BE VERY GREAT SCOPE FOR ABUSE. THE BALANCE OF ADVANTAGE LIES HEAVILY IN FAVOUR OF REPEAL OF ALL THE PROVISIONS OF THE ORDINANCE EXCEPT FOP THOSE RELATING TO THE REGISTRATION OF PUBLICATIONS.
5. AS SEEN FROM HERE, THE MAJOR POTENTHAL DIFFICULTY IS WITH THE CHINESE. THE FOLLOWING POINTS COULD BE MADE TO THEM.
(A) THIS ORDINACNE WITH THE EXCEPTION OF THE REGISTRATION PROVISIONS WAS ENACTED PRINCIPALLY FOR THE PURPOSE OF SUPPRESSING ANTI-HONG KONG GOVERNMENT PROPAGANDA IN LEFT-WING NEWSPAPERS.
(B) IT WOULD BE TOTALLY OUT OF KEEPING WITH THE PRESENT STATE OF RELATIONS BETWEEN THE UK AND CHINA OVER HONG KONG FOR THESE PROVISIONS TO REMAIN ON THE STATUTE BOOK. THEY BELONG TO A RYGONE ERA, AND IT IS ENTIRELY APPROPRIATE FOR THEM TO BE REMOVED AS PART OF THE PROCESS OF PREPARING HONG KONG FOR 1997.
(C) IN THE UNLIKELY EVENT OF VIOLENTLY HOSTILE PROPAGANDA BEING PUBLISHED BY PEOPLE SEEKING TO SABOTAGE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE JOINT DECLARATION, ADEQUATE POWERS EXIST IN OTHER LEGISLATION. IN A REAL EMERGENCY, SPECIAL POWERS COULD BE ENACTED.
CONFIDENTIAL
16.
Page 270Page 271
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.