TNAG-2168-FCO40-3105-House-of-Commons-Foreign-Affairs-Committee-inquiry-into-Hong-1990 — Page 81

CONFIDENTIAL

The Chinese made clear on each occasion that the questioning

of stationing troops had been settled in the JD and that the

numbers and location of troops to be stationed in the SAR were sovereign matters for the Chinese.

4.

It is highly unlikely that the Chinese would ever agree

to limit their own future freedom of movement by making a

public statement about their intentions. But we hoped that

they would at least refrain from publicly reaffirming their

right to station troops. Whether through our efforts, or

simply because the issue had seized to topical in Hong Kong, the Chinese have not said anything unhelpful for some

months. We would propose to revert to the subject in the

context of JLG discussions on defence lands, when we will

stress that there is little practical need for a large and

prominent PLA presence in Hong Kong after 1997. But we believe it would be counterproductive to revert to the issue

before then.

Amendments to Basic Law

(Present position is that some amendments need the consent of ExCo/LegCo before being submitted to the NPC. Does this

go far enough?)

5. Under Article 159, the NPC has the power of amendment of Basic Law. The power to propose Bills of amendment is vested in (a) the Standing Committee of the NPC, (b) the

State Council, and (c) the SAR. There is additional

provision relating to Bills proposed by the SAR. Such Bills

require the consent of two-thirds of all the members of the

Legislative Council, and the Chief Executive of the Region,

as well as two-thirds of the Deputies of the Region to the

NPC. There is no provision for consent by ExCo. The

requirement that two-thirds of the members of the

Legislative Council, together with the Chief Executive, should consent to Bills is a welcome provision as ensuring

that a Bill emanating from the SAR must have local approval.

CONFIDENTIAL