TNAG-1602-FCO40-2198-Future-of-Hong-Kong-Basic-Law-1987 — Page 3

29/

213

The my

24/1

1. Layde

SECRET

or

I have not had time

to disenos

Mr. Smith

(HKD)

with Mr. J.

I'm not sure

9

FROM: Paul Fifoot

DATE:

agree

with his comments

ما

general

parus

We don't want to see

PRC Constitution, which

for

HONG KONG TELNO 1461: BASIC LAW:

1.

CHAPTER VI

W

14 April 1987

11, 14, 17.768. My point

language in the Basin Law lorrowed from the full of high-minded declarations perfectly appropriate -party socialist state but ecarcely appropriate for HK.*?

should put that view to him.

think

we

I have the following comments:

Paragraphs 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 12, 13:

Tom Small 10/14

I agree.

Para 2: The introductory words from "except" to "a feel" proposed by Hong Kong are exceptionally, and I think unnecessarily, cautious. It seems clear that this Chapter is only dealing with part of the area of Hong Kong's autonomy.

Paras 11, 14, 17 and 18: Logically, Hong Kong is right. However, I wonder whether it is prudent to look at this purely in logical terms. To a certain extent, various provisions of this Chapter reflect parts of the Chinese Constitution and the Chinese may well see a need to have demonstrative provisions in the Basic Law even when, in logic, those provi- sions are covered by general words. Further, it may well be true, that certain matters fall within the autonomy of the SAR, but I would not think that that argument should necessarily prevail over a possible Chinese need for demonstrative provisions so long as the latter are in neutral terms.

ef

Paul Fifoot

Legal Advisers

one

* To put but question: how

are such declaratory laws justiciable in the courts common law jurisdiction.

д

*.

SECRET