CONFIDENTIAL
0717
MOLIAN 3
FOREIGN NATIONALS AMONG THE PERMANENT RESIDENTS OF THE SAR. THE CIVIL RIGHTS OF CHINESE COMPATRIOTS IN HONG KONG WERE WHAT THE ICCPR SHOULD PROTECT. HOWEVER, THEIR RIGHTS WOULD BE INFRINGED BY THE BOR WHICH GRANTED EQUAL RIGHTS TO PARTICIPATE IN PUBLIC LIFE REGARDLESS OF NATIONALITY.
A
(G) DAMAGE TO TRADITIONS RECOGNISED THE LAWFUL TRADITIONAL RIGHTS AND INTERESTS OF NT INDIGENOUS RESIDENTS. THESE RIGHTS AND INTERESTS WERE UNIQUE IN THEMSELVES. ART. 1 OF THE BOR HOWEVER SAID THAT RIGHTS SHOULD BE ENJOYED BY EVERY PERSON WITHOUT ANY DISTINCTION.
EXISTING HONG KONG LAWS AND THE BL
(H) TONG ALSO SAID THAT THE DRAFTSMEN HAD 'UNREALISTICALLY'
COPIED DIRECTLY INTO THE BOR MUCH OF THE WORDING OF ICCPR. FOR EXAMPLE, 'AMNESTY' USED IN ART. 2(4) WAS USUALLY GRANTED BY A SOVEREIGN STATE IN ACCORDANCE WITH ITS CONSTITUTION, AND HAD NOT BEEN A PRACTICE IN HONG KONG.
(I) TONG SAID THAT THE BOR HAD DEPARTED FROM THE CO-OPERATIVE SPIRIT OF THE JD AND WAS A CONTRAVENTION OF THE RELEVANT
PROVISIONS OF THE BL.
COMMENTS
2. TONG'S CRITICISMS ARE A REHEARSAL OF POINTS HE AND OTHERS MADE PREVIOUSLY.
(F) IS NONSENSE SINCE ART. 21 NOW REFERS TO 'PERMANENT RESIDENTS'. WE HAVE EXPLAINED OUR THINKING IN RESPECT OF (C) AND (H). (A) IS A PLAY OF WORDS RELYING ON A NARROW AND INCORRECT INTERPRETATION OF THE CHINESE TRANSLATION OF
'CIVIL RIGHTS' IN THE TITLE OF ICCPR. THE REPETITION OF THESE
POINTS IS A FURTHER INDICATION OF THE PAUCITY OF THE CHINESE
ARGUMENT AGAINST THE BOR.
3. WE SHALL WATCH CLOSELY WHETHER ANY OF THESE POINTS ARE TAKEN UP WIDELY BY OTHER COMMENTATORS AND, IF NECESSARY, WE SHOULD BE PREPARED TO REFUTE THEM ROBUSTLY.
FORD
YYYY
PAGE 2 CONFIDENTIAL
Redacted under FOI exemption 27(1)|
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.