TNAG-2553-FCO40-3728-Hong-Kong-Bill-of-Rights-review-of-legislation-1992 — Page 119

CONFIDENTIAL

are relatively minor, and they have already been mentioned very informally to the Chinese. For these HKG favour option (c), ie publication without further consultation or briefing but provision of full briefing if the Chinese enquire. In the light of Chinese reactions on these two ordinances, they would send recommendations for handling the others (some of which may prove intrinsically more difficult).

UKREP JLG concur.

Argument

8. The difficulty is that for the Chinese to agree to amendments to local legislation to make it consistent with the BOR, they would (at least implicitly) have to give up their objections to the BOR. In fact their hostility to the BOR has grown over the past year. We know that they have been monitoring related judicial proceedings. Moveover even if they were to acquiesce in the amendments to the two

corruption ordinances, they would be forewarned and might demand consultations on all subsequent (and more controversial) amendments that we would need to make.

9.

There is bound to be a row about this with the Chinese.

Apart from their hostility to the BOR itself, they could argue that the proposed amendments would reduce the powers of the executive, would make it harder to maintain law and

order, would represent a further unilateral shifting of the

1984 Hong Kong goal-posts, would be bad for stability in Hong Kong and, since the SARG would be likely to want to

repeal them in 1997, bad for a smooth transition. We have

good answers to all these points, but they will not convince

Peking or avert a row.

10. We cannot avoid amending these ordinances without

abandoning the Bill of Rights itself. LegCo will not be

FUTABG/4

CONFIDENTIAL