TNAG-2175-FCO40-3112-Hong-Kong-Bill-of-Rights-1990 — Page 225

CONFIDENTIAL

Faxed to Mr Suen. CAB

From:

Mr Galworthy UKREP ILG Mr Crates Peking.

Paul Fifoot

Legal Advisers

Date: 5 July 1990

CC

Mr McLaren

Fco Telno

1260 refers.

Mr Burns

Mr Paul, HKD Ms Barrett o/r

ра

pa Pm617

Ms Major, HKD

HKD 241/1

12 JUL 1990

RY

:

198

HONG KONG BILL OF RIGHTS

Summary

1.

GISTRY

ACHGE Jhon

(a) Clauses 7(3) and 14 clearly demonstrate the present inability of Hong Kong to bring into force a Bill'of Rights which is effective and, therefore, call into question proceeding with the Bill now;

(b) A policy of inaction as respects the possibility of the Bill affecting the rights of the inhabitants of the New Territories would not be consistent with the responsibilities of an Administration;

(c) There remain other defects, some more significant than others, and we should urge the Hong Kong Government to remedy them.

General Points

2. I have now had an opportunity of reading the ExCo Memorandum in the 3 July 1990 version and the Bill attached to it. There are some changes from the Memorandum dated 29 June.

3. It is apparent on the face of the amended Bill, and to a far greater extent than on the White Bill, that Hong Kong has a great deal to do before it is in a position to bring into force a law which does in fact implement the ICCPR. Two provisions, Clause 7 (3) and Clause 14, demonstrate that so far as party and party rights are concerned (ie. the

obligations of individuals to each other),

Hong Kong has no safeguards as regards the protection of privacy, family, home, correspondence, etc (and paragraphs 32 to 39 of the Memorandum also indicate a further paucity of safeguards as regards freedom of opinion and discrimination both as regards party and party rights and as regards governmental obligations), and that overall it is considered unsafe to chance testing existing legislation against the Bill of Rights. It is clear that this state of affairs is

3PFAAC

CONFIDENTIAL

Page 225Page 226