XN000022-1994-12-08 — Page 12

- 11

-

+

-

Mr Simon Ip: Thank you Mr Chairman. The Governor has side-stepped my question on the ground that it was hypothetical. It wasn't hypothetical, it raises a very real issue in that we know already unless Martin Lee tells me otherwise that there will be an amendment moved to the Bill which will track the wording of Article 82 of the Basic Law. The question which I wish to put is: Could we have a Court of Appeal before 1997 along the lines of Article 82 of the Basic Law and not along the lines of the JLG Agreement? Because that would be the effect of the amendment, if passed, and there must be a realistic possibility of the amendment being passed.

Governor: I agree that it may not be hypothetical, that an amendment to a Bill that isn't yet published in its final form will be tabled. On the other hand, it is certainly hypothetical to consider what we would do if such an amendment was passed. But I just put this point to the Honourable Member. This happened in good faith before I became Governor of Hong Kong. In 1991, in good faith, in line with the Joint Declaration and the Basic Law, totally in line with the Joint Declaration and the Basic Law, an agreement was made on the Court of Final Appeal. Is the Government of Hong Kong to conclude that the PRC who were party to that agreement would be happy with some differently composed court? I don't think that is likely for one moment and I think you have to be particularly naive to think that they would be happy with some other sort of court, particularly when they have suggested otherwise.

-

·

Let me just deal with one other linguistic issue because it seems to me that the main argument of the critics of our proposals, insofar as it has any merit, depends on whether the use of judges in the plural - in the sacred texts means judges in the plural at the same time or judges in the plural sequentially. The plural, in English, can of course and in other languages I imagine - refer to both. The Legislative Council could conclude that the Governor could take lunches in the Legislative Council Canteen whenever he wanted. That would not mean more than one lunch at the same time, that would mean lunches every other Friday. So the proposition on which some lawyers seem to base what I think is a wholly invalid and damaging stack of arguments, represents a curiously narrow minded view of the English language.

Mr Szeto Wah (through interpreter): Mr Governor, just now you talked about semantics. Recently you have invented a new term, you talk about "sick parrots". This term has given rise to a lot of repercussions in the community. Now when we talk of parrots they are birds, and sick parrots we are talking about sick birds. And in Chinese the word "bird" has another meaning. So Mr Governor, are you aware that there is another meaning to the word "bird" and when you invented this term have you included that other meaning in your "sick parrots", in your term? Do you know the Chinese meaning of the word "bird"?