TNAG-1863-FCO40-2643-Future-of-Hong-Kong-Basic-Law-1989 — Page 171

CONFIDENTIAL

047

MDHIAN G

I AGREE THAT WE NEED TO CONTINUE TO REASSESS OUR APPROACH. MY INCLINATION AT PRESENT IS TO START WITH THE LINE THAT WE HAVE USED

I.E. WE RECOGNISE THE CHINESE HAVE THE SOVEREIGN RIGHT TO STATION TROOPS IN THE SAR, BUT IT WOULD BE A MAJOR CONTRIBUTION TO THE RESTORATION OF CONFIDENCE IN HONG KONG IF THE CHINESE GOVERNMENT WERE TO CHOOSE NOT TO EXERCISE THAT RIGHT. I WOULD NOT/NOT EXPECT TO BE SUCCESSFUL. ON THE GARRISON GIVING ASSISTANCE IN THE MAINTENANCE OF PUBLIC ORDER OR DISASTER RELIEF, I WILL WISH TO TOUCH ON THE POINTS MADE IN THE NOTE HANDED TO THE MFA ON 7 SEPTEMBER TO THE EFFECT THAT SUCH ASSISTANCE SHOULD ONLY BE REQUESTED BY THE SARG WITH THE AGREEMENT OF LEGCO AND THAT THE GARRISON SHOULD RESPOND ONLY TO THE EXTENT REQUESTED.

(III) ARTICLE 157

I SHALL REITERATE CURRENT PUBLIC CONCERN OVER THE POSSIBLE EROSION OF THE SAR'S POWER OF FINAL ADJUDICATION AND THE NEED TO AMEND THE

ARTICLE TO MAKE IT CLEAR THAT THE POWER OF INTERPRETATION OF

t I

'AUTONOMY' ARTICLES IS EXCLUSIVELY VESTED IN THE SAR COURTS.

(IV) THE BASIC LAW COMMITTEE

I WOULD WISH TO MAKE TWO POINTS. FIRST, SINCE THE BASIC LAW COMMITTEE WILL PLAY AN IMPORTANT ROLE IN THE IMPLEMENTATION OF A NUMBER OF KEY ARTICLES, IT IS IMPORTANT THAT ITS MEMBERS SHOULD HAVE THE NECESSARY EXPERTISE AND COMMAND THE CONFIDENCE OF HK PEOPLE. IT SHOULD THEREFORE COMPRISE MOSTLY IF NOT ENTIRELY, LEGAL EXPERTS. SECONDLY, A WAY WILL HAVE TO BE FOUND TO ASSURE HK PEOPLE THAT THE VIEWS OF THE BASIC LAW COMMITTEE WILL BE ACCEPTED AND ACTED UPON BY

THE NPC STANDING COMMITTEE.

(C) LEGAL EXPERTS

·

(I) WE AGREE THE INCLUSION OF ARTICLES 31, 64 AND 159. WE ALSO AGREE ADOPTING THE BPG PROPOSAL ON ARTICLES 8 AND 159.

(II) WE PROPOSE TO INCLUDE ARTICLE 13, 19(3) AND 88 FROM PART B OF THE CRITIQUE.

2. PARA 4 OF TUR RAISES A NEW POINT ABOUT AMENDMENT OF THE BASIC LAW. IT IS POSSIBLE THAT THE PROBLEM OF 'CONVEYANCE' WITH THE POST 1997 POLITICAL STRUCTURE MAY LEAD US TO HAVE TO ADDRESS THIS QUESTION IN DUE COURSE. BUT WE DO NOT/NOT FEEL THE TIME IS RIGHT FOR THIS POINT TO BE RAISED NOW. THERE IS, AS YOU SAY, A NEGATIVE AS WELL AS A POSITIVE SIDE IN SUGGESTING THAT THE BASIC LAW COULD BE FURTHER AMENDED BY THE CHINESE BEFORE 1997. MY MAIN DOUBT ON THIS

2

PAGE

CONFIDENTIAL

Redacted under FOI exemption 27(1)