*********************************************************
The Chief Executive and five government officials today (Tuesday) hold a press conference on right of abode issue. The following is the English portion of the transcript of the press conference:
Question:... who might be eligible after the interpretation is given? And secondly, do you plan to issue any sorts of guidelines to explain when you may or may not seek interpretation? I spoke to a legal representative today and he said that he felt before you announce this you should give some sort of guidelines to the people of Hong Kong as to the exact circumstances in which you can and cannot seek such interpretation.
Secretary for Security, Mrs Regina Ip: On the question of numbers, if the NPCSC interprets Article 22 (4) and Article 24 (2) (3) as we request, this would reduce the additional numbers of people eligible, the first generation, from our original estimate of about 700,000 to not more than 200,000.
Information Coordinator, Mr Stephen Lam: Maybe, Chief Secretary, would you like to take the second-half of the question.
Chief Secretary for Administration, Mrs Anson Chan: Could you repeat the question first.
Question: Is there any plan to issue any sorts of guidelines to state when the Government is able to go to the Standing Committee in the future? Because obviously, some people are worried that if ever there is a judgement that you don't like, you might simply seek to ask the Standing Committee.
Mrs Anson Chan: The Chief Executive has just made it very, very plain and we've stressed this in our briefing to the Legislative Council this afternoon, that clearly, going to the Standing Committee to seek an interpretation is not something that we will do frequently. We will only resort to this very, very sparingly, and only when it is necessary to seek the Standing Committee's interpretation of the original intent of the provisions in the Basic Law. So we are not acting arbitrarily and we will not act arbitrarily. I don't know whether Elsie has anything to add to that.
Secretary for Justice, Miss Elsie Leung: Yes, may I supplement that ... so, in fact, it is much more restricted than, for example, the power for amendment of the Basic Law. And history shows that the Standing Committee would only exercise that power sparingly. Between 1950 -- 1949 until 1983, it was exercised six times and since then it has only been exercised twice, in 1996 and 1998, in respect of the application of the Nationality Law to Hong Kong and to Macau respectively. So you can see that this power is not exercised unless in the most important area.
Question: Does this mean that in Hong Kong, it is the Executive rather than the Judiciary deciding what the legislative intent of the Basic Law is? And if so, what is the point of having a Court of Final Appeal?
Law Officer (Civil Law), Mr Ian Wingfield: As far as the legislative intent is concerned, that is what the Court is attempting to assess as well. But the power of interpretation, under the Basic Law, is ultimately vested in the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress. So that is what the Basic Law provides and an interpretation by the National People's Congress Standing Committee is binding upon all people in Hong Kong of course, including the Judiciary. But that doesn't affect the outcome or the rights of people whose cases have already been determined by the courts. Those will remain unaffected by any subsequent interpretation.
Question: Sorry, does that mean that the Court of Final Appeal has no right to rule on matters of principle, only on individual cases?
Mr Ian Wingfield: No, it has the right to rule on matters of principle as well. It has the right to rule on matters of principle affecting all other forms of legislation. But as far as the Basic Law itself is concerned, the ultimate power of interpretation is vested in the National People's Congress Standing Committee. So it is a division of responsibility rather than one having an exclusive right.
Question: Mr Tung, you referred to 'one country, two systems' and that expression is usually followed by the expression 'Hong Kong people ruling Hong Kong'. Doesn't the fact that you now have to go to the Central People's Government ... in order to solve this problem, mean that there has been a failure in Hong Kong people ruling Hong Kong?
Chief Executive, Mr Tung Chee Hwa: I don't think so, Francis. I think, basically, this is a case - and it is the right case - where we go to the Central People's Government, to the National People's Congress Standing Committee to seek interpretation on an issue which vitally affects Hong Kong's long-term interests. And also, it is perfectly legal and proper for us to do so.
And let me emphasise one more time that these are very special circumstances and we will not use this very lightly, and the National People's Congress Standing Committee will not exercise their interpretation powers very lightly. And so we have to look at it in a different light, that there is a major problem in Hong Kong, we need to solve this problem and we have looked at all the options, and this option seems to be the only way out.
Question: If I could follow, sir, what you are saying is, you have looked at all the options and none of the options allow for solving it within Hong Kong. So have the courts let you down? Where is the failure?
Mr Tung Chee Hwa: Well, I would say this, that 'one country, two systems' is a pioneering effort. The Basic Law, as well, is being used - this is now the second year of using the Basic Law - so there are bound to be cases like this. And we should look at it in this way, and we are fortunate we can find a way to solve this problem.
Mrs Anson Chan: I think, Francis, you ought also to bear in mind that in this specific case we are talking about people coming from the mainland to settle in Hong Kong, so it is an issue in which the mainland authority does have a legitimate interest and it does affect the relationship between the Central Government and the SAR region. So on this occasion, as the Chief Executive has explained, and bearing in mind that the Chief Executive does have the responsibility of implementing the Basic Law and we have encountered difficulties, it is entirely legitimate to go to the Standing Committee for an interpretation.
I wish, also, to stress that we are doing this strictly in accordance with the powers in the Basic Law, in circumstances that do not undermine the rule of law or the independence of the Judiciary. It is crucially important to bear those in mind because we all acknowledge those to be the cornerstones of Hong Kong's success and prosperity, and we intend to maintain those cornerstones.
Question: ... Mr Andrew Li, was he informed of this decision beforehand, and if so what was his response?
Mr Tung Chee Hwa: No, he was not informed.
Question: Why was he not informed?
Mrs Anson Chan: The Judiciary is totally independent from the Executive, ... so what role to play in this matter?
Question: But he made - the Court of Final Appeal made the decision in the first place, so don't you feel that it would be appropriate to inform them of this change?
Mrs Anson Chan: No, not at all.
Question: ... import perhaps, from the Chief Executive. Mrs Ip, how can you predict so accurately what the result of the Standing Committee's interpretation will be? You say that the result of the interpretation will be that 200,000 people can come, then on the other hand the Government also says if you go the amendment route there is no way to predict what the result will be. I'm a bit confused.
Mrs Regina Ip: Of course, we can't predict whether the NPCSC will indeed interpret the relevant Articles of the Basic Law in the way we requested. Earlier on, we described what we intend to request them to do. As to the numbers, the important point is that if the NPCSC rules that only those children born in the mainland to Hong Kong residents who were already Permanent Residents at the time of birth- this is the ruling which substantially increased the pool of people eligible-according to our survey findings, this would reduce the first generation of about 700,000 by half a million. Because if the ruling on allowing illegitimate children born to men to have -- out-of-wedlock children born to men to have the right of abode is retained, then we estimate that not more than 200,000 would be eligible.
Transcript of press conference on right of abode issue (Chinese part)
End/Tuesday, May 18, 1999
NNNN