TNAG-2708-FCO40-3914-House-of-Commons-Select-Committee-on-Foreign-Affairs-and-Par-1993 — Page 119

The Rt. Hon. Lord Shawcross G.B.E, Q.C. 60 VICTORIA EMBANKMENT

LONDON EC4Y OJP

071-325 5133

18 December 1992

The Baroness Chalker of Wallasey Minister of State

Foreign & Commonwealth Office London SW1A 2AH

Never Mineven:

<

How very kind and thoughtful of you to write to me at such length - or indeed at all - about the unfortunate Hong Kong situation. I had indeed been wondering if I should be regarded as impertinent if I had written to you, as I was minded to do, to tell you how much I admired your handling of the debate in the House.

This makes me all the more sorry that I am unable to agree with the legal arguments put forward in your letter. But first may I repeat what I said in my recent letter to The Times namely that I do not think the present problem rests upon or should be resolved by narrow legalistic points. That being so, I will not bore you with a lengthy reply to the points made by the Foreign Office lawyers in your letter.

In the second paragraph it appears to be suggested that I was wrong in saying that the Governor's speech undermined the Joint Declaration because that document contained no word about increasing democracy. But Paragraph 49 expressly refers to the LEGCO when the Chinese had come into control and gives no power to the British administration to do more than increase the number of geographical constituencies. Certainly the underlying intention of both Governments in 1984 was that democracy should "evolve" but-as the Basic Law provided- in accordance with the principle of "gradual and orderly progress". The aim was universal suffrage - but this was "the ultimate aim" and the underlying principle agreed upon was one of "gradual and orderly change" and "smooth transition." It is in the light of these general expressions that the specific undertaking that "the laws currently in force in Hong Kong will remain unchanged" was included in the Joint Declaration. It really cannot be argued that the changes now proposed which ensure that all the working population have votes and increase the electorate by five times are an example of "smooth transition".

I do not understand whether you are saying that there was not an "elite" committee whose function was to nominate 10 members of the LEGCO from the ranks of experienced businessmen, elder statesmen and the like? The system now proposed for the election of the 10 members bears no resemblance to this. What is being done is in effect to introduce a very near approach to universal suffrage, a thing not contemplated as happening before the SAR came into being.

contd: