Redacted Under FOI Exemption Sec 27(1)
the first
were informed via memoranda XCX (91) 13 and XCX (91) 17, of discussions concerning the Bill of Rights at JLG XVIII. The texts of the amendments offered to the Chinese side and intended to meet their concerns are set out in Annex
The Chinese position was, however, that our proposed amendments were insufficient to overcome their objections. If the Bill of Rights were to be enacted, the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress would need to examine it for consistency with the Basic Law.
6
Our assessment
basic concerns remain, relatively mild if the
A.
is that although the Chinese side's their response to its passage might be
proposed amendments we put to them were made. In considering whether or not to pursue such amendments, we have to assess on the one hand the repercussions of a hostile Chinese reaction and, on the other hand the presentational and political difficulties in introducing these amendments in the absence of Chinese support for, or at least non opposition to, the Bill.
7
As suggested in memorandum XCX(90)75, any provision in the Bill of Rights making it subject to the Letters Patent (or the Basic Law after 1997) is likely to be criticized in Hong Kong and overseas on the grounds that
(ม)
Suci a provision is otiose, because in any event the Bill will be subject to the Letters Patent and the Basic Law; and
such
2 provision would constitute unusual legislative practice, and might well encourage litigants to look for inconsistencies between the Bill of Rights and the Letters Patent before 1997, or the Basic Law after 1997.
De
18 likely to
more pronounced, particularly in the overseas media, because the United Nations Нидал Rights Committee hearing at New York earlier this month drew attention once again to alleged inconsistencies between the Basic Law on the one hand and the Joint Declaration, and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (and hence the Bill of Rights) on the other, and to the unentrenched status of the Bill and its lack of supremacy over other domestic legislation. We therefore do not intend to pursue the amendment without an
explicit chinese acknowledgement that it would satisfy their concern. In order to minimize the negative Chinese response to our dropping the amendment, we would inform the Chinese that we remain ready to insert a clause making the Bill subject to the Basic Law as part of the midnight
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.