2ND ADD GIS
GOVERNOR:
I DON'T KNOW HOW ANYONE WHO UNDERSTANDS HONG KONG, WHO UNDERSTANDS THE ASPIRATIONS AND CONCERNS OF PEOPLE OF HONG KONG COULD POSSIBLY ARGUE THAT WHAT HAS HAPPENED IN MR. HAN'S CASE HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE PEOPLE OF HONG KONG, THAT IT'S ENTIRELY A MATTER FOR INTERNAL POLITICS IN CHINA AND THAT WE SHOULD MIND OUR OWN BUSINESS. I THINK THAT TO SUGGEST THAT SUGGESTS A WOEFUL MISUNDERSTANDING BOTH OF THE VALUES WHICH ARE IMPORTANT TO HONG KONG AND OF THE SORT OF FUTURE THAT PEOPLE IN HONG KONG WANT FOR THEMSELVES AND THEIR FAMILIES.
LET ME MAKE THE POINTS MORE EXPLICITLY THAN THAT. WHAT HAS HAPPENED IN MR. HAN'S CASE IS THAT HE HAS BEEN PUSHED INTO OUR TERRITORY IN FLAGRANT CONTRADICTION - IT HAS TO BE SAID - OF THE INTERNATIONAL RULE OF LAW AND OF OTHER INTERNATIONAL PRECEDENCE. THERE IS NO DISPUTE ABOUT THAT. HE HAS BEEN PUSHED INTO HONG KONG WHERE I KNOW MANY PEOPLE HAVE TRIED TO MAKE HIM AS WELCOME A GUEST AS POSSIBLE. SECONDLY, WHAT IS FUNDAMENTAL TO THE JOINT DECLARATION, WHAT IS FUNDAMENTAL TO OUR PROSPERITY, WHAT IS FUNDAMENTAL TO OUR VALUES HERE IN HONG KONG IS THE RULE OF LAW. AND WHEN PEOPLE SEE WHAT HAS HAPPENED IN MR. HAN'S CASE, THEY INEVITABLY ASK THEMSELVES QUESTIONS ABOUT THE ATTACHMENT OF THOSE WHO MADE THESE DECISIONS TO THE RULE OF LAW. THE RULE OF LAW DOESN'T ALLOW OFFICIALS, DOESN'T ALLOW GOVERNMENTS TO TRAMPLE ALL OVER THE LAW WHENEVER THEY THINK IT SUITS THEM. THE RULE OF LAW IS ABOUT TREATING
IS ABOUT TREATING INDIVIDUALS FAIRLY, TREATING THEM WITHIN THE LAW. SO IT'S NOT SURPRISING THAT PEOPLE HERE IN HONG KONG SHOULD FIND THEMSELVES CONCERNED BY WHAT HAS HAPPENED IN THIS ONE VERY STRIKING INDIVIDUAL CASE. I HOPE THAT MEMBERS OF THOSE ADVISORY GROUPS WHICH HAVE BEEN SET UP TO HELP CHINA PLAN FOR 1997, I HOPE MEMBERS OF THE PWC, I HOPE MEMBERS OF THE NPC WHO COME FROM HONG KONG WILL ALL OF THEM TAKE UP THIS CASE IN THE INTERESTS OF THE PEOPLE OF THIS COMMUNITY. THE BASIC LAW IS ABSOLUTELY CLEAR IN WHAT IT SAYS ABOUT FREEDOM OF TRAVEL. WHAT PEOPLE ARE ASKING THEMSELVES IS WHETHER THEY CAN ACTUALLY BELIEVE THAT IN THIS CASE. AND THAT'S A QUESTION WHICH HAS TO BE PUT AND A QUESTION WHICH HAS TO BE ANSWERED.
ONE OTHER THING. IF WE SWEEP CASES LIKE THIS, AND ISSUES LIKE THIS, UNDER THE CARPET, IF WE SIMPLY IGNORE CASES LIKE THIS, THEN I THINK ISSUES LIKE THIS WILL COME BACK AND HAUNT HONG KONG IN THE FUTURE. SO IT IS RIGHT TO ADDRESS THESE ISSUES SQUARELY, IT'S NOT PROVOCATIVE TO DO SO, IT IS A REFLECTION OF THE REAL WORRY, THE REAL CONCERNS OF THE PEOPLE OF THIS COMMUNITY.
QUESTION:
MR PATTEN, ON THIS QUESTION OF LOCALISATION, DO YOU NOT THINK THE GOVERNMENT MADE THE MISTAKE BY NOT CONSULTING THE LOCAL STAFF IN THE FIRST PLACE AND THE SITUATION WAS AGGRAVATED BY YOU PERSONALLY NOT RECEIVING THE PETITION FROM THE LOCAL ASSOCIATION?
GOVERNOR:
NO, I DON'T THINK THAT EITHER OF THOSE THINGS APPLY BUT
LET ME DEAL WITH THEM IN ORDER.
THERE WERE THREE COURSES OF ACTION THAT I SUPPOSE WE COULD HAVE TAKEN ONCE WE'D RECEIVED UNEQUIVOCAL ADVICE FROM TWO INDEPENDENT LEGAL SOURCES ABOUT THE INCOMPATIBILITY OF OUR EXISTING POLICY WITH THE BILL
}
OF RIGHTS AND I JUST SAY
IN PARENTHESIS
A
THAT WHEN TWO OR THREE
400'd 8406 SP8 298 +
6
'S'1'9
92:02 £661-d3S-SO
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.