**************************************************************************
Following is the statement of the Chief Secretary for Administration, Mrs Anson Chan, at the House Committee meeting of the Legislative Council this (Tuesday) afternoon:
Mr Chairman,
Thank you for giving my colleagues and I the opportunity this afternoon to explain the right of abode (ROA) issue.
There is a very heated debate on the ROA issue recently. Various sectors of the community, in particular the legal profession, the academia, and all walks of life have expressed very strong views over different options to resolve the problem. None of the options discussed so far is not controversial.
The Government is faced with a difficult decision. Our decision must be in the long-term interests of the community and comply with the provisions of the Basic Law and the constitution of the People's Republic of China (PRC).
After thorough discussion this morning, the Executive Council (ExCo) has decided that the Chief Executive should, in accordance with Articles 43 and 48(2) of the Basic Law, seek the Central Authorities' assistance and ask the State Council to request the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress (NPCSC) to interpret the legislative intent of Articles 22(4) and 24(2)(3) of the Basic Law in accordance with the PRC constitution and the Basic Law.
The Special Administrative Region (SAR) Government upholds the rule of law and fully respects the independence of the Court of Final Appeal (CFA). However, we are of the view that the CFA's interpretation of Articles 22 and 24 of the Basic Law differs from the SAR Government's understanding of the legislative intent of the provisions. The CFA judgment has increased tremendously the number of people who are qualified for ROA in Hong Kong, which would impose a severe social and economic burden on Hong Kong. ExCo has decided that the Chief Executive should report to the Central Authorities and request for an interpretation of the relevant articles of the Basic Law.
The four options considered by ExCo are -
(i) All the persons who are eligible for ROA by virtue of the CFA judgment be allowed to come to Hong Kong for settlement;
(ii) A new ruling to be delivered by CFA through new cases;
(iii) National People's Congress to amend the Basic Law; and
(iv) NPCSC to interpret the relevant provisions of the Basic Law.
ExCo has discussed thoroughly the pros and cons of the four options, and the relevant arguments have been set out in the paper issued to LegCo Members. The Chief Executive has listened to the views of various political parties in LegCo and members of the legal profession. Having considered in detail the opinions expressed through various channels, ExCo has decided to seek an interpretation of the relevant articles of the Basic Law from the NPCSC.
I believe all Members will agree that the concept of "One Country, Two Systems" has no precedent in history. Hong Kong did not have its own written constitution in the last 100 years. Against this background, there could be grey areas in the implementation of the concept of "One Country, Two Systems" and the Basic Law. It is the responsibility of the SAR Government to seek a solution to such problems.
The decision of ExCo to seek an interpretation of the Basic Law is in accordance with the following principles -
(i) Comply with the Basic Law: Article 158 of the Basis Law provides that the power of interpretation of the Basic Law shall be vested in the NPCSC. The NPCSC's power to interpret the Basic Law is part of our new constitutional order and this has been accepted by the CFA. In exercising its power, the NPCSC will interpret relevant articles of the Basic Law in accordance with its legislative intent.
(ii) Respect the independence of the CFA and preserve the power of final adjudication of the CFA: Even if the NPCSC comes to a different interpretation of the provisions in question, judgment previously rendered will not be affected. In other words, the parties to the relevant cases would not be affected.
(iii) Maintain Hong Kong's high degree of autonomy: The power of interpretation of the Basic Law is vested in the NPCSC. It is in response to the SAR Government's request through the State Council that the NPCSC exercises its power to interpret the relevant articles of the Basic Law to reflect the legislative intent. This will not lead to deprivation of the legal power of Hong Kong, nor will it undermine Hong Kong's autonomy.
Let me reassure you that what we are now facing is a very exceptional case, the SAR Government will certainly not make a request to the Central Authorities for the NPCSC to exercise its power to interpret the Basic Law lightly. As we all know, the NPCSC has exercised its power of interpretation on only eight occasions since 1950s.
Last Friday, the House Committee of LegCo passed a motion requesting the Government to deal expeditiously with the issue of ROA of the people in the Mainland born to Hong Kong residents, and to propose effective options. We have already written to the President of LegCo seeking permission to move a Government motion at tomorrow's LegCo sitting on this particular issue.
I would now like to invite the Secretary for Security to briefly introduce the paper which we have tabled today. Secretary for Justice will then report on her visit to Beijing last week and explain why we have chosen the interpretation option.
END/Tuesday, May 18, 1999
NNNN