1
Conventions is a material disadvantage effectively to the people of Hong
Kong in denying them the same access to international institutions that
others will have if the Chinese Government did become a signatory?
(Mr Chamberlain)
because the Bill of Rights Ordinance is part of the law of Hong Kong and
the provisions of that Bill of Rights Ordinanace will be justiciable before
the courts of Hong Kong and the courts of Hong Kong will protect people's
rights under that. As I said, the Chinese have accepted that the Bill of
Rights Ordinance will remain as part of the law of Hong Kong.
I think we would hope that that would not arise
Mr Harris
h
84.
But is this not the Achilles Heel because when we were in
Hong Kong a number of lawyers in particular expressed great concern about
the possible composition of the courts and whether the courts would have
complete independence given that at the end of the day they were answerable
to China in some respects and that they had doubts over their jurisdiction
in that I suppose that it has to be referred back to the National People's
Congress. Surely everything will be fine if China does honour the spirit
of the agreements and also the spirit of the legislation there, but if it
does not then it seems to me at any rate that the poor Hong Kong people are
going to have to rely purely on international public opinion and will have
no recourse whatsoever to outside bodies to come to their aid.
h
(Mr Chamberlain) I think tat the answer to the question is that the
legal system in Hong Kong will remain as it is broadly speaking and
provided that Hong Kong law (and bearing in mind that it is based on the
common law) continued to respect individual rights and freedoms, then the
repeal of the Bill of Rights would not necessarily take that system of
protection away. After all in the United Kingdom we have no Bill of Rights
but individual rights and freedoms are guaranteed through the common law
23