WEDNESDAY, JUNE 5, 1991
14
IS TO
AS
HE SAID IT WAS PROPOSED THAT CLAUSE 2(3) BE AMENDED BY REPLACING THE PHRASE "THE PURPOSE OF THIS ORDINANCE
COVENANT FURTHER THE INTERNATIONAL
KONG" WITH THE APPLIED TO HONG
TO
FOR ORDINANCE IS
PROVIDE
KONG HONG
OF PROVISIONS OP
APPLIED AND POLITICAL RIGHTS AS CONNECTED MATTERS"
IMPLEMENT ON CIVIL AND POLITICAL RIGHTS EXPRESSTON "THE PURPOSE OF THIS THE INCORPORATION INTO THE THE INTERNATIONAL COVENANT
ON
LAW
TO HONG KONG, AND FOR ANCILLARY
OF
CIVIL AND
HE SAID IT WAS FELT THAT THE PHRASE "TO IMPLEMENT FURTHER" WAS NOT, IN ALL THE CIRCUMSTANCES, THE BEST PHRASE TO DESCRIBE THE PURPOSE OF THE BILL. A SIMILAR AMENDMENT TO THE LONG TITLE WAS PROPOSED.
"THE
INTERNATIONAL COVENANT ON CIVIL AND POLITICAL RIGHTS AS APPLIED
HONG KONG HAS HITHERTO BEEN IMPLEMENTED IN HONG KONG THROUGH THE COMMON LAW, LEGISLATION AND ADMINISTRATIVE MEASURES.
מיין'
"THAT BEING
THE So,
TEXT OF THE PREAMBLE MIGHT
A CREATE MISLEADING IMPRESSION THAT A BILL OF RIGHTS, AS A MATTER OF LAW, IS REQUIRED TO IMPLEMENT THE COVENANT EN HONG KONG.
"THE ADMINISTRATION THEREFORE PROPOSES TO DELETE THE PREAMBLE.
"NONE OF THESE AMENDMENTS IS INTENDed to change THE SUBSTANCE OF THE BILL," MR MATHEWS SAID.
HE POINTED OUT THAT CLAUSE 4 PROVIDED THAT ALL LEGISLATION WAS TO BE CONSTRUED, SO FAR AS POSSIBLE, AS BEING TO THE BILL OF RIGHTS.
THAT
FUTURE SUBJECT
THE USE OF THE PHRASE "SUBJECT TO" HAD GIVEN RISE то CONCERN THEREBY THE BILL OF RIGHTS WOULD ATTAIN A STATUS IN LAW AS SOME KIND OF SUPERIOR CONSTITUTIONAL INSTRUMENT, COMPETING PERHAPS WITH THE BASIC LAW, HE SAID.
"THAT WAS NOT THE INTENTION," MR MATHEWS SAID,
TO MAKE THIS MORE CLEAR, AN AMENDMENT TO CLAUSE 4 WOULD PROVIDE FOR INTERPRETATION TO BE CONSISTENT, IF POSSIBLE, WITH THE COVENANT.
"SUCH A CLAUSE, WE BELIEVE, WILL SIT WELL WITH THE PROVISIONS OF THE JOINT DECLARATION AND THE BASIC LAW.
"
HE SAID THAT THERE WAS SOME CONCERN THAT CLAUSE 6, THE REMEDIES (LAUSE, DID NOT MAKE CLEAR THE CIRCUMSTANCES IN WHICH AN ACTION INVOLVING A BREACH OF THE BILL OF RIGHTS MIGHT BE BROUGHT, AND IN PARTICULAR THAT IT WAS INTENDED TO PERMIT AN ACTION WHERE THE SOLE COMPLAINT NIGHT BE A BREACH OF THE RILL OF RIGHTS.
THE AMENDMENT TO CLAUSE 6 WHICH WAS PROPOSED BY MEMBERS WOULD SERVE TO CLARIFY THE FACT THAT THERE WERE TWO BASIC SITUATIONS WHERE A REMEDY MIGHT BE GRANTED UNDER THE BILL.
"THE FIRST IS WHERE AN ACTION IS BROUGHT RELATING SOLELY TO A VIOLATION OF ANY ONE OF THE ARTICLES IN PART 11 OF THE BILL.
"THE SECOND SITUATION IS WHERE A VIOLATION IS RELEVANT IN THE COURSE OF PROCEEDINGS, BUT THERE IS NO ACTION BASED SOLELY ON THE BILL
71
OF RIGHTS, MR MATHEWS SAID.
/MR MATHEWS