TNAG-2174-FCO40-3111-Hong-Kong-Bill-of-Rights-1990 — Page 70

CONFIDENTIAL

CONFIDENTIAL

FM HONG KONG

TO IMMEDIATE FCO

TELNO 1847

OF 12111OZ JUNE 90

i HKD 241

13 JUN 1990

KOR

ISTRY

Taken

INFO IMMEDIATE UKREP JEG HONG KONG, PEKING

MY 2ND IPT: HONG KONG BILL OF RIGHTS

149

026535

MDHIAN 4434

RY

TOP COPY DIST?

YRTELNO 1009

119

1. WE HAVE EXPLAINED IN MIPT OUR OBJECTIONS TO THE PROPOSAL THAT

PART III OF THE ORDINANCE BE DELETED. WE WILL EXPAND UPON THEM.

2. NEW ARTICLE 5(6):

WE WOULD PREFER TO LEAVE IT TO THE COURTS TO DECIDE UPON THE EXTENT OF THIS RESERVATION RATHER THAN INADVERTENTLY LIMIT THE RIGHTS AND FREEDOMS BY YOKING THE RESERVATION TO PARTICULAR ARTICLES. AS FOR SPECIFYING WHICH ARMED FORCES ARE MEANT, WE SEE NO HARM IN BEING SPECIFIC (AS IN THE BILL) GIVEN THE FACT THAT HONG KONG IS

REGULARLY VISITED BY NAVAL VESSELS FROM OTHER COUNTRIES.

3. NEW ARTICLE 6(4):

OUR COMMENTS CONTAINED IN MIPT APPLY HERE TOO.

4. NEW ARTICLE 8(5):

OUR PREVIOUS COMMENTS APPLY.

5. ARTICLE

9:

OUR PREVIOUS COMMENTS APPLY.

6. ARTICLE

17(1):

AS WE READ IT THE RESERVATION DOES NOT SAY THAT ANYTHING WILL NOT

BE DONE. IT RESERVES THE RIGHT NOT TO DO SOMETHING COR CONVERSELY TO DO IT). IT THEREFORE LEAVES US FREE TO LEAVE THE LAW AS IT IS, OR TO INTRODUCE A NEW LAW TO IMPLEMENT ARTICLE 20 OF THE COVENANT.

THE MAIN VALUE OF KEEPING ARTICLE 17 AND CLAUSE 13 IS THAT THEY KEEP STRICTLY TO JD 156, AND THEREFORE TAKE ACCOUNT OF THE CHINESE DIMENSION. IN ADDITION, “ARTICLE 17 WOULD ASSIST US TO WITHSTAND PRESSURE FROM ANY QUARTER TO INTRODUCE LEGISLATION WHICH WAS INCONSISTENT WITH ARTICLE 20 OF THE COVENANT. WE PREFER THEREFORE

TO KEEP THE BILL AS IT IS.

7. ARTICLE 22:

1

PAGE

CONFIDENTIAL