TNAG-2220-FCO40-3188-Future-of-Hong-Kong-Public-Order-Ordinance-1991 — Page 95

A

B

ດ

C

A

A 1991

CONFIDENTIAL

S

HKB 012 13

Pa

From: A R Paul

Hong Kong Department

MsMajum

for 2115

MrStyle

1. tel timme

Me fal, was

L

إسلا

на

PS/Lord Caithness

Ps/Lord

2 Тому

Date: 20 May 1991

CC:

PS/Mr Lennox-Boyd

Sir J Coles

Mr Davies, FED

Ms Barrett, Legal Advisers

agree

with Alais telegram

/21/5

Tony G's comments. We have been

PUBLIC ORDER ORDINANCE give o

is "real

dy

b

why

there

info. operational need "for this now

1. I submit a telegram to Hong Kong, on the lines discussed ssed

this afternoon, in response to Hong Kong telno 1557 and

UKREP JLG telno 140.

@

(6

م

ede

20/5

2. Your minute of 15 May recorded Lord Caithness' comments on this subject. I agree that the proposed amendments to this Ordinance could appear of major significance to China and that presentation is crucial. These points were flagged strongly in FCO telno 946.

3.

Although we consider Hong Kong's proposed timing and presentation to be potentially disastrous, we do not take issue with the content of the proposal. The cumulative effect of the provisions of the Public Order Ordinance as they stand are arguably too restrictive of the right to peaceful assembly in the ICCPR (and therefore the Bill of Rights). Furthermore the provisions at F and I in the attached telegram arguably in themselves are inconsistent with the ICCPR. The amendments would bring the POO more

into line with the UK's international obligations.

ROEAKE/1 CC

CONFIDENTIAL