TNAG-2553-FCO40-3728-Hong-Kong-Bill-of-Rights-review-of-legislation-1992 — Page 120

CONFIDENTIAL

willing to extend the freeze period, so after 7 June the

ordinances could be struck down on judicial review.

11. The Chinese can make a row, which could be

debilitating, and this could further slow down work in the

JLG. But on past form, the fall-out is likely to be

limited eg no linkage to the airport project. And the

Chinese have no practical power to frustrate the amendments

before 1997. (We cannot sensibly predict what they will

seek to do then, when they will themselves have to weigh the

real impact on Hong Kong).

12.

I believe that our objectives must therefore be

(a) to get the row with the Chinese out of the way as

quickly as possible;

(b) to minimize its impact on the Secretary of State's

meeting with Qian Qichen on 9 March (while bearing in mind

the leverage that meeting may afford); and

(c) quietly to get some credit with LegCo and in the UK

for sticking to our guns on the Bill of Rights. (But we must discourage crowing.)

13. HKG's proposals seem to me to meet these objectives,

although I would like them to look again at the possibility

of giving the Chinese informally and as courtesy a little

advance notice of publication of the draft amendments

(explaining that because of our difference of views on the

BOR we had judged that consultation would not be useful; and

that the SARG will be free to reconsider matters in 1997).

We should get on with amending the anti-corruption ordinances as soon as possible. Depending on the Chinese

reaction to these, we should probably then let the dust

FUTABG/5

CONFIDENTIAL

Page 120Page 121