TNAG-2174-FCO40-3111-Hong-Kong-Bill-of-Rights-1990 — Page 76

CONFIDENTIAL

013670 MDHIAN 3872

CONFIDENTIAL

FM HONG KONG

TO IMMEDIATE FCO

TELNO 1803

OF 07103OZ JUNE 90

KD241/1

12 JUN 1990

INFO PRIORITY UKREP JLG HONG KONG

GOVERNOR!

PERSONAL FOR PAUL HKD FROM GOVERNOR

€139

YOUR TELNO 1063 BILL OF RIGHTS

вино.

1. I HAVE BEEN GIVING SOME CAREFUL THOUGHT TO YOUR SUGGESTION THAT WE MIGHT POSTPONE THE INTRODUCTION OF THE BILL INTO THE LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL.

2. THERE ARE, AS YOU SAY, ARGUMENTS BOTH WAYS. WE HAVE RECEIVED ALMOST 800 SUBMISSIONS UP TO TODAY (7 JUNE) WHICH IS THE LAST DAY FOR PUBLIC COMMENTS. SOME 730 OF THESE ARE HOWEVER IN THE FORM OF STANDARD PREPRINTED LETTERS WHICH RAISE NO NEW POINTS. OUR BASIC APPROACH TO THE BILL HAS OF COURSE ALWAYS BEEN THAT IT SHOULD REPRODUCE, WITH AS FEW CHANGES AS POSSIBLE, THE EXACT PROVISIONS OF THE ICCPR AS APPLIED TO HONG KONG IN ORDER TO COMPLY WITH THE JD

AND TO AVOID ACCUSATIONS OF INCOMPATIBILITY WITH THE BL.

CONSEQUENTLY IT SHOULD BE POSSIBLE TO REDUCE THE SUBMISSIONS WE HAVE RECEIVED TO A FEW KEY ISSUES, MOST IF NOT ALL OF WHICH WE HAVE ALREADY FOCUSSED UPON. THE LEGAL WRINKLES WHICH YOUR LEGAL ADVISERS HAVE BROUGHT UP (YOUR TELNOS 1007-1010, WHICH CONTAINED SOME USEFUL THOUGHTS) CAN ALSO BE IRONED OUT WITHIN THE NEXT COUPLE OF WEEKS. FINALLY, ALTHOUGH IT WOULD NOT BE A TIDY OPTION IT WOULD STILL BE POSSIBLE FOR US TO MAKE AMENDMENTS, IF NECESSARY, AFTER THE INTRODUCTION OF THE BILL INTO LEGCO.

3. I DO NOT/NOT WISH TO RUSH OUR FENCES ON THE BILL. IT IS IMPORTANT AND COULD HAVE SIGNIFICANT CONSEQUENCES BOTH FOR OTHER LEGISLATION AND FOR THE WORK OF THE COURTS. NOR, HOWEVER DO I WISH TO DELAY ITS PROGRESS WITHOUT GOOD REASON. TO DO SO WOULD ALLOW FURTHER UNDESIRABLE POLITICAL PRESSURE TO BUILD UP HERE, WHERE DELAY WOULD INEVITABLY BE INTERPRETED AS BOWING TO CHINESE PRESSURE. FURTHERMORE BOTH TO THE PUBLIC AND TO THE CHINESE DELAY WOULD SUGGEST THAT WE HAD BITTEN OFF MORE THAN WE COULD CHEW AND WOULD WEAKEN OUR ARGUMENT THAT THE PRESENT EXERCISE IS MAINLY A CODIFICATION OF EXISTING RIGHTS. IT WOULD STRENGTHEN THE CHINESE CASE THAT THE BILL WAS A MAJOR INNOVATION REQUIRING CONSULTATION

1

PAGE CONFIDENTIAL