ON October 10, 1989, the Urban Council held a debate on the draft Basic Law: ''That this Council notes the contents of the draft Basic Law and requests the Secretary to send members' comments to the Drafting Committee through the appropriate channels.'' I spoke and the following is an excerpt of my speech: ''In the introductions to both the Joint Declaration and the draft of the Basic Law, China has pledged to maintain the stability of Hongkong. Hence the freedom to interpret Note 42 is limited in that the PLA shall replace the British Garrison in such a way as to maintain the stability of Hongkong and within the law of Hongkong. The role of the British Garrison today is twofold. First, it is ceremonial - to demonstrate sovereignty. Second, it provides defence. From a military point of view it does not have to be in Hongkong to defend it. In almost no other city in the world is this done. It only has to be within easy reach. In the case of Hongkong, however, the British have nowhere else to put it. To demonstrate sovereignty, however, the British Garrison does have to be in Hongkong. Indeed, there are plenty of examples, worldwide, of ceremonial troops stationed in big cities, London being a prime example. Though demonstration of sovereignty is not specifically referred to in either the Joint Declaration or the draft Basic Law, it would be reasonable to concede that the Central People's Government should have the right to such demonstration if it so wishes. Since the signing of the Joint Declaration, history has taught us two lessons: 1. Hongkong people are capable of massive peaceful demonstrations. 2. The PLA can be provoked into firing live rounds into a crowd of civilians. The demonstrations in Hongkong were focused on the Cenotaph and an unarmed news agency. Had they been focused against a military base they might not have been so peaceful. In other parts of the world such demonstrations are often against military bases. Simply stationing PLA troops in Hongkong is therefore going to threaten the stability of Hongkong. The firing of one bullet would shatter it. Now, it is against the law in Hongkong to fire a bullet, except for internal security and that will not be the role of the PLA. It is also against the law to possess live ammunition without a permit. Hence the PLA in Hongkong would not be allowed to possess live ammunition without a permit. To demonstrate sovereignty, however, it is not necessary for soldiers to be armed. Indeed, members of the Queen's Household Cavalry normally carry no weapon more lethal than a ceremonial sword. The PLA demonstrating sovereignty, therefore, would have no need of live ammunition.'' This speech recommended modification of the Basic Law before it was finalised. That is now history. The fact remains that disruption of the stability of Hongkong can still be minimised by stationing the PLA here for ceremonial purposes only and making it clear to the public that they are not armed with live ammunition.'' SAMUEL P. W. WONG Legislative Councillor