65.
Mr Wareing
If the Governor were to ask your advice on what might happen
after discussions have taken place on his proposals, and the Chinese
Government have said, "No, we cannot agree to this", given the answer Mr
Hum has just given that we are the sovereign power until 1997, what would
your advice be? What would both you gentlemen advise if the Governor were
proposing to go ahead anyway? Would perhaps not the terms of the
Declaration or the Basic Law be contravened, but maybe the spirit would be?
What would your advice be to the Governor?
(Mr Chamberlain) I think this is a hypothetical question, and I am
very reluctant to give advice in advance on such a question. So far as the
spirit of something is concerned, I must say as a lawyer I hate this
concept. It usually means that those who use the term are advocating a
particular position which they cannot find support for in the actual text.
I do hope with respect that the Committee would understand that it would be
undesirable for me to speculate as to what the advice would be if a certain
event, which at the moment is hypothetical, were to happen. Indeed, I
would have to add that so far as legal advice is concerned that would be
governed by a code of professional privilege, so I hope you will understand
my reluctance to be drawn into this rather hypothetical question.
66.
Chairman
We understand. It is something we do not want to see happen
and we hope it does not.
(Mr Hum) I would rather not put my answer in terms of advice that I
would give, but I simply point out that the Government has made clear
throughout that it is our desire to work within the parameters laid down by
the Joint Declaration and by the Basic Law, and by whatever understandings
and agreements have been reached with the Chinese side. I have no doubt
16
Page 135Page 136
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.