TNAG-1863-FCO40-2643-Future-of-Hong-Kong-Basic-Law-1989 — Page 183

CODE 18-77

POPABT (5)

CONFIDENTIAL

Reference..

a) Since the existing treason and sedition law would have to be replaced, and that any state was entitled to have a treason and sedition law (and official secrets laws) of Hong Kong's present kind, we should propose that the Aritcle referred to above should be replaced by one in terms more traditionally used and understandable in HK.

b) Since there was a considerable difference between the possible effects of seditious acts committed in Hong Kong on the UK (distant some thousands of miles away) on the one hand and China on the other, we should recognise and volunteer that some seditious acts could have an effect next door in China.

We

9. Accordingly we proposed a formula which after some discussion forms Article 23 of the Basic Law ie "The Hong Kong Special Administrative Region shall enact laws on its own to prohibit any act of treason, secession, sedition or theft of state secrets".

also (in a letter to Shao Tianren of 31 October 1988) set out an outline of the kind of offences which would be contained in a law to

give effect to such an Article. I attach that as an appendix to this minute. As in our (and Hong Kong's) treason laws, it applies to treasonable offences against the sovereign power and (as in section 9 (1)(a) of the HK's Crimes Ordinance) it applies to inciting hatred and contempt to sovereign authorities. But, in recognition of the proximity of China, it would go beyond the scope of the existing law by extending beyond the boundaries of HK the scope of the offence of inciting persons to procure the alteration other than by lawful means of any matter by law established (see para 6 (B) of the outline in the appendix).

10. We have had no reaction from the Chinese to this outline.

Nevertheless, our answer to any proposal on the lines set out in paragraph 1 of this minute is that the Basic Law already makes specific provision for those circumstances and we have given the Chinese authorities a comprehensive outline which confirms this.

Nothing more is needed in the Basic Law. I should repeat, in view of paragraph 8 (b) of HK telno 3454, that it is not only a matter of Hong Kong people exercising their right to freedom of speech responsibly; Article 19 of the ICCPR allows a state to put

CONFIDENTIAL