POPULATION AND IMMIGRATION
become a Hong Kong permanent resident at the time of his birth or at any time. thereafter.
The HKSARG fully respected the CFA's power of final adjudication, but believed that the true legislative intent of Articles 22(4) and 24(2)(3) of the Basic Law as reflected in the relevant background materials relating to these articles was not the same as had been interpreted by the CFA. A special survey conducted by the Census and Statistics Department showed that as a result of the judgment, 1.6 million persons in the Mainland would become eligible for ROA. Their prospective arrival, which would create unbearable social and economic burdens on the community, caused widespread concerns in the community. The general public was anxious that the HKSAR should find a speedy solution to the serious problems arising.
The HKSARG carefully considered all available options including, in particular, an amendment or an interpretation of the relevant provisions of the Basic Law. The power of amendment is vested in the National People's Congress (NPC). The power of interpretation is vested in the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress (NPCSC). Although either option would have been lawful and constitutional under the Basic Law, an interpretation discerns the true legislative intent of a provision, while an amendment changes it.
The HKSARG needed to know the true legislative intent of the relevant provisions of the Basic Law, namely Articles 22(4) and 24(2)(3), and not to change it. Article 22(4) reflects the Mainland's long-standing policy of controlling the number of persons who enter Hong Kong for the purposes of settlement in order to maintain Hong Kong's prosperity and stability. It also concerns the relationship between the Central Authorities and the Region. Article 24(2)(3) is based on a similar provision in the Joint Declaration. It is clear from an agreement in the Sino-British Joint Liaison Group, established under the Joint Declaration, that both the Chinese side and the British side considered that the relevant provision in the Joint Declaration should be understood as 'a person of Chinese nationality born outside Hong Kong shall have right of abode in the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region if at the time of his or her birth, whether before or after the establishment of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region, one of his or her parents is a Chinese national who has right of abode in Hong Kong.' It therefore decided to seek an interpretation. On May 19, the Legislative Council passed a motion by a majority vote to support this decision. Various opinion polls conducted by independent institutes also showed strong support by the public for this move. On May 20, the HKSARG approached the State Council to request assistance in seeking an interpretation by the NPCSC.
On June 26, 1999, the NPCSC issued an interpretation of Articles 22(4) and 24(2)(3) of the Basic Law. It was clarified that persons born of Hong Kong residents in the Mainland are eligible for ROA only if, at the time of their birth, at least one of their parents has ROA under Article 24(2)(1) or Article 24(2)(2) of the Basic Law. That is to say, in general terms, at least one of the parents had been born in Hong Kong or had ordinarily resided in Hong Kong for seven years. Furthermore, eligible persons must apply for exit approval from the Mainland authorities before coming to Hong Kong for settlement.
Following that, the Court of Final Appeal, in adjudicating another right of abode litigation that involved 17 Mainland persons who claimed right of abode in Hong Kong without holding a C of E and a One-way Permit, ruled unanimously on
415