had specifically stated it should rest". We understand your
concern. However the Basic Law has gone a considerable way in
conferring judicial power of interpretation on the SAR's
courts. They are authorised to interpret on their own those
provisions of the Basic Law falling within the range of the
SAR's autonomy. The only cases on which the SAR's courts are clearly obliged, in the circumstances set out in the third paragraph of Article 158 of the Basic Law, to seek an interpretation from the NPC Standing Committee will be questions involving foreign affairs and defence or the relationship between the Central Authorities and the Region.
It is worth noting that the Basic Law reserves the power of judgement (as opposed to interpretation) to the SAR courts and, in this connection, judgements previously rendered will not be affected by subsequent interpretation by the NPC Standing Committee.
The report calls for revision of Article 23 of the Basic Law
as it requires legislation prohibiting subversion, a concept
which has no equivalent in the present legal system of Hong Kong. However, offences of the same kind as subversion are covered by the present Crimes Ordinance. The important point is that Article 23 provides for laws on these issues to be enacted by the SAR legislature. They will be Hong Kong laws, not Chinese laws applied to Hong Kong.
As the report notes, the Hong Kong Government is undertaking a review of laws which might jeopardise press freedom and the
case for a Freedom of Information Ordinance. This review is
close to completion. The Executive Council in Hong Kong will
be asked to consider and advise on the outcome once the review
is completed.
frn.good.FUT
SLM