CONFIDENTIAL
174537
MDHIAN 9960
GRATEFUL FOR A REPLY ON THIS POINT. AS POINTED OUT IN MY TELNO 2250, MY VERY STRONG PREFERENCE IS THAT THE QUESTION OF ABOLITION SHOULD NOT BE RAISED NOW, AND CERTAINLY NOT THROUGH A U K INITIATIVE. IF MINISTERS DECIDE THAT THEY MUST NEVERTHELESS MAKE USE OF THE OPPORTUNITY PRESENTED BY THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE BILL, THE LEAST DIFFICULT OPTION FOR HONG KONG WOULD BE LEGISLATION THAT APPLIED ONLY TO BERMUDA (OR ANY OTHER SINGLE TERRITORY).
5. NONE OF THE OTHER THREE OPTIONS SET OUT IN PARA 2 OF MY TELNO 2250 IS ATTRACTIVE. OF THE THREE, (A) WOULD PROBABLY BE THE WORST, BECAUSE IT WOULD INVOLVE UK LEGISLATION. THIS WOULD UNDERMINE HONG KONG'S AUTONOMY IN AN EXTREMELY SENSITIVE AREA. IT WOULD ALSO NOT LAST BEYOND 1997, THUS NEGATING THE MAIN PURPOSE OF ABOLITION FROM HONG KONG'S POINT OF VIEW. OPTIONS (B) AND
DO NOT CREATE THIS
PROBLEM. BUT THEY WOULD CREATE A FURTHER PUBLIC DEBATE THAT WE COULD WELL DO WITHOUT JUST NOW. I WOULD IN ALL PROBABILITY HAVE TO COMMIT THE HONG KONG GOVERNMENT TO A REVIEW OF OUR PRESENT POLICY.
6. WE MAY WELL WANT TO REVIEW OUR POLICY BEFORE 1997 IN ANY CASE. THERE ARE SOME SIGNS THAT PUBLIC OPINION IS BEGINNING TO CHANGE ON THE ISSUE. THE BAR ASSOCIATION AND SEVERAL INDIVIDUAL LAWYERS LIKELY TO STAND FOR ELECTION IN 1991, MAY SOON RAISE THE QUESTION OF ABOLITION. BUT IT IS IMPORTANT THAT THE IMPETUS FOR REVIEW SHOULD COME FROM WITHIN HONG KONG. THIS WOULD NOT BE THE CASE IF EITHER OPTION (B) OR (C) WAS FOLLOWED.
WILSON
YYYY
ΜΑΙΝ
LIMITED
HKD
WIAD
UND
35
ADDITIONAL
1
MR BUTT, PLANNERS
NNNN
DISTRIBUTION
36
LEGAL ADVISERS
MR MCLAREN
MR BURNS
MR BEAMISH
PAGE 2 CONFIDENTIAL
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.