XN000022-1988-07-13 — Page 6

5.

-

WEDNESDAY, JULY 13, 1988

UNDER

MEMBERS CONSIDERED THAT THE FORMULATION OF "COMES THE CENTRAL PEOPLE'S GOVERNMENT" IN ARTICLE 11 CLARIFICATION.

DIRECTLY REQUIRED

TO

BE

AND

IN

ARTICLE 21, WHICH AMPLIFIED THIS STATUS, OUGHT APPROPRIATELY REDRAFTED ΤΟ THE EFFECT THAT THE DEPARTMENTS PROVINCES OF THE CENTRAL PEOPLE'S GOVERNMENT "SHALL NOT THE AFFAIRS OF THE HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION"

INTERFERE

THE SECOND ASPECT CONCERNED PERMANENT RESIDENTS OF THE SAR. WONG REFLECTED MEMBERS' VIEW THAT A SEPARATE ARTICLE SHOULD APPEAR CHAPTER 1, DEFINING THE RIGHT OF ABODE OF THESE PEOPLE.

MR

IN

MEMBERS

BE

THE THIRD ASPECT CONCERNED AREAS OF POWERS OF THE SAR. NOTED THAT ARTICLE 2, AS DRAFTED, COULD BE CONSTRUED ΤΟ INCONSISTENT WITH THE JOINT DECLARATION WHICH STIPULATED "REGION WILL ENJOY A HIGH DEGREE OF AUTONOMY, EXCEPT

THAT THE IN FOREIGN DEFENCE

AND AFFAIRS WHICH ARE THE RESPONSIBILITIES OF THE PEOPLE'S GOVERNMENT".

CENTRAL

FORMULATIONS FOR

MR WONG SAID MEMBERS HAD PROPOSED PREFERABLE A NUMBER OF RELATED ARTICLES IN AN EFFORT TO DISPEL THE PROBLEMATIC CONCEPT OF "RESIDUAL POWER".

THE FOURTH ASPECT CONCERNED THE TYPES OF POWERS OF THE MEMBERS HAD NOTED THAT CERTAIN PROVISIONS IN THE DRAFT BASIC

BE CONSTRUED AS DEROGATING 1 WHICH WAS CONSISTENT

SAR.

LAW

COULD BE PROBLEMATIC IN THAT THEY MIGHT FROM THE PROVISION IN ARTICLE 2 OF CHAPTER WITH THE JOINT DECLARATION.

MR WONG SAID THAT WHILE

PEOPLE'S GOVERNMENT ENJOYED

MEMBERS ACCEPTED THAT THE CENTRAL EXECUTIVE, LEGISLATIVE AND JUDICIAL

POWERS OVER THE HONG KONG SAR, INCLUDING THE INTERPRETATION OF THE BASIC LAW, THEY MAINTAINED THAT SUCH POWERS OUGHT ΤΟ BE CONSISTENT WITH THE TERMS OF THE JOINT DECLARATION.

STRICTLY

LAW FOR

MEMBERS WERE OF THE VIEW THAT OF THE THREE SOURCES OF THE REGION, THAT IS, THE BASIC LAW, THE LAWS PREVIOUSLY IN FORCE IN HONG KONG, AND THE LAWS ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE SAR, THOSE LAWS ENACTED BY THE NATIONAL PEOPLE'S CONGRESS OR ITS STANDING COMMITTEE, IF REQUIRING APPLICATION LOCALLY, SHOULD NOT BE DECREED BY THE STATE COUNCIL FOR LOCAL APPLICATION OR BE PROMULGATED LOCALLY ON THE DIRECTIVES OF THE STATE COUNCIL, BUT SHOULD BE LEGISLATED FOR LOCALLY ON SUCH DIRECTIVES.

MEMBERS FEARED THAT DECREES OR

PROMULGATION MIGHT CONSTITUTE A FOURTH SOURCE OF LAW, THUS DEVIATING FROM THE JOINT DECLARATION.

MEMBERS WERE ALSO WARY OF THE PHRASE "OTHER

++ LAWS WHICH GAVE EXPRESSION TO NATIONAL UNITY AND TERRITORIAL INTEGRITY, AND FELT THAT IT OUGHT TO BE INCORPORATED INTO THE BASIC LAW, PROBABLY AS AN APPENDIX.

/ON THE