CONFIDENTIAL
114.
124307
MDHIAN 0936
CONFIDENTIAL
FM HONG KONG
TO IMMEDIATE FCO
TELNO 1607
OF 170953Z MAY 90
[HKD24.1
2 MA. 1990
INFO PRIORITY PEKING, UKREP JLG HONG KONG
113) ~[
YOUR TELNO 985) BILL OF RIGHTS: MEETING WITH THE LEGCO AD HOC
GROUP
THE QUESTION ASKED BY THE LEGCO AD HOC GROUP WAS QUOTE HAS ANY CONSIDERATION BEEN GIVEN TO WHAT MIGHT HAPPEN IN THE CASE OF
ARTICLES IN THE BILL CONFLICTING WITH ARTICLES IN THE BASIC LAW (E.G. ARTICLE 22 OF THE BILL OF RIGHTS VIS-A-VIS ARTICLE 67 OF THE BASIC LAW) UNQUOTE.
2.
IN OUR REPLY WE SAID QUOTE SHOULD ANY CONFLICT BETWEEN THE BASIC LAW AND THE BILL OF RIGHTS BE DEMONSTRATED, THEN TO THE EXTENT THAT THE BILL OF RIGHTS IS IN EFFECT THE ICCPR AS APPLIED TO HONG KONG IN DOMESTIC LAW, THE CONFLICT WOULD BE INTERNAL TO THE BASIC LAW BECAUSE ARTICLE 39 OF THE BASIC LAW ENUNCIATES THE LEGAL PRINCIPLE THAT NO LAWS CAN BE ENACTED IN THE SARG WHICH ARE INCONSISTENT WITH THE ICCPR AS APPLIED TO HONG KONG. ANY SUCH CONFLICT CAN BE RESOLVED BY AMENDING THE BASIC LAW. BUT NO AMENDMENT COULD DEROGATE FROM THE RIGHTS ENSHRINED IN THE ICCPR AS APPLIED TO HONG KONG BECAUSE TO DO SO WOULD AMOUNT TO A BREACH OF THE JOINT DECLARATION UNQUOTE.
3. IT IS UNFORTUNATE THAT OUR REPLY WAS LEAKED TO THE STANDARD WHICH REPRODUCED IT ON 14 MAY, BUT WITH A MISLEADING HEADLINE AND A DISTORTED LEAD PARAGRAPH QUOTE THE GOVERNMENT HAS SAID ANY CONFLICTS BETWEEN THE BASIC LAW AND THE BILL OF RIGHTS SHOULD BE RESOLVED BY AMENDING THE BASIC LAW UNQUOTE.
4. THERE WAS NOT MUCH PUBLIC OR PRESS INTEREST IN THE STANDARD ARTICLE. IN A SUBSEQUENT INTERVIEW WITH THE SING TAO JIH PAO, MICHAEL SUEN TOOK THE OPPORTUNITY TO CLARIFY THE MEANING INTENDED IN OUR REPLY TO LEGCO.
WILSON
YYYY
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.