30
issues in Peking itself?
(Mr Maude) I do not think it is intended to do that. Do you want to
comment on that specifically?
(Mr_McLaren)
I think Mr Rowlands is right that these last words are
an addition which was put in after the events in June. I think that they
are not ideal and I think we would have preferred not to see them there,
but they are not a constraint which is a particularly damaging one, in our
view.
49.
If the Basic Law, Mr Maude, had been in force with this
provision last year would it have been possible for the young people and
the students and the people of Hong Kong to go on the streets in the way
they did to object to what was going on in Peking?
(Mr Maude) I do not see anything in this which prevents it because
what it does is refer to foreign political organisations and preventing
political organisations or bodies in the region from establishing ties with
foreign political organisations or bodies. I do not see that there is
anything in that which prevents Hong Kong people from exercising their
rights of association and free speech, which are guaranteed under the Basic
Law and the Joint Declaration.
50.
So if this combination of revised articles would allow
particularly the sort of political activity we saw happen here, the
Chinese, who have quite xenophobic tendencies at times, would not claim
a state of turmoil and would claim this was concocted by a foreign
organisation linked to the people of Hong Kong and, therefore, they had the
right under the Basic Law to intervene in a situation of a kind that a
twelvemonth ago happened?
this was
(Mr Maude) I do not see that. As I say, the Joint Declaration back in
1987 and the Basic law formulated in final draft after the events in
1984.
30
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.