CONFIDENTIAL
025266
MDLIAN 7352
19. I RECOGNISED THAT IT WAS VERY DIFFICULT TO WRITE DOWN THE PRESENT SITUATION BRIEFLY AND ACCURATELY. CASES INVOLVING ACTS OF STATE OR
FACTS OF STATE WERE VERY RARE IN THE UK AND HAD NOT OCCURRED IN HONG KONG IN RECENT MEMORY. NEVERTHELESS, THE OBJECTIVE MUST REMAIN TO ENCAPSULATE THE PRESENT SYSTEM IN THE DRAFT. THE KEY TO THIS WAS THAT THE COURTS COULD NOT QUESTION THE VALIDITY OF ACTS OF STATE
BUT COULD JUDGE MATTERS CONNECTED WITH THEM. WE COULD PROVIDE THE DRAFTERS WITH A FORM OF WORDS TO CLARIFY THIS.
ARTICLE 157: INTERPRETATION OF THE BASIC LAW
20. THIS ARTICLE HAD BEEN MUCH IMPROVED FROM THE FIRST DRAFT. IT WAS INDEED DIFFICULT TO SEE HOW TOTAL POWER OF INTERPRETATION COULD BE GIVEN TO THE SAR. THE QUESTION WAS HOW TO MAKE ABSOLUTELY CLEARE THAT SAR COURTS, AND ONLY THEY, COULD INTERPRET THOSE MATTERS WITHING THE SAR'S AUTONOMY. THIS WAS A SUBJECT FOR LEGAL EXPERTS. HOWEVER, AS A LAYMAN I COULD COMMENT ON TWO POINTS MADE TO ME. ONE WAS THAT THE FORMULA IN PARAGRAPH 2 OF ARTICLE 157, ''SHALL AUTHORISE'', MIGHT INDUCE UNCERTAINTY ABOUT WHETHER THE AUTHORISATION WOULD BE GIVEN. THE CHINESE VERSION WAS CLEARER BY SAYING SIMPLY ''AUTHORISES''. THE SECOND POINT CONCERNED THE PENULTIMATE SENTENCE OF PARAGRAPH 3. SOME ARGUED THAT THIS WAS OPEN TO THE INTERPRETATION THAT THE STANDING COMMITTEE COULD INTERPRET MATTERS WITHIN SAR AUTONOMY. ONE SIMPLE WAY OF OVERCOMING THIS DOUBT WOULD BE TO REPLACE THE FULL STOP BEFORE THIS SENTENCE WITH A COLON. NO DOUBT EXPERTS WOULD WISH TO GIVE THIS POSSIBILITY FURTHER THOUGHT.
ARTICLE 158: AMENDMENT TO THE BASIC LAW
21 I SAID I WAS NOT AWARE THAT THIS ARTICLE HAD AROUSED ANY SERIOUS
CONCERN. DID EG GUANGDONG DEPUTIES NEED A TWO THIRDS MAJORITY OR ONLY A SIMPLE MAJORITY TO PUT FORWARD A PROPOSAL TO AMEND LAWS?
LU PING SAID THAT IN THIS CASE ONLY A SIMPLE MAJORITY WAS NEEDED BUT HONG KONG WAS DIFFERENT: THEY HAD DELIBERATELY MADE AMENDMENT DIFFICULT. I AGREED THAT CERTAINTY THAT THE BASIC LAW WOULD NOT FREQUENTLY CHANGE WAS IMPORTANT. I NOTED ALSO THAT BEFORE AN AMENDING PROPOSAL COULD BE PUT TO THE NPC THE BASIC LAW COMMITTEE WOULD NEED TO BE CONSULTED AS A FURTHER CHECK. IT WAS WORTH HOWEVER CONSIDERING THE NEED TO AVOID CONFLICT BETWEEN THE LEGISLATURE AND NPC DELEGATES. IF THE FORMER APPROVED BY TWO THIRDS THE LATTER DOING SO ALSO MIGHT POSSIBLEY BE A PROBLEM.
ARTICLE 89: NATIONALITY OF LEADING JUDGES
PAGE
3
CONFIDENTIAL