XN000022-1995-10-19 — Page 21

20

Responsible and balanced course in human rights protection

The Hong Kong Government has conscientiously nurtured, as a matter of deliberate policy, a high level of domestic awareness of human rights, the Solicitor General, Mr Daniel R Fung, QC, told the United Nations Committee on Human Rights (UNHRC) in Geneva today (Thursday, Geneva time).

Speaking at a hearing of the Committee on the implementation of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) in Hong Kong, Mr Fung said the Government had carefully charted a course between the demands of those who wanted far-reaching and immediate changes and the more conservative elements of the community who would prefer to see as little change as possible.

"The balanced position adopted by the Government is a responsible one, fully consistent with the aspirations enshrined in the ICCPR and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR)," he added.

Mr Fung noted that the Hong Kong Government was and had been for some years deeply committed to a legal policy and social programme of promotion, enhancement and protection of human rights by law.

Ever since Britain acceded to the ICCPR in right of Hong Kong in 1976, the Hong Kong Government had taken steps progressively to ensure that the domestic legal regime for human rights protection met the minimum standards laid down in the Covenant.

He said in 1984 the United Kingdom and the People's Republic of China signed the Sino-British Joint Declaration on the Future of Hong Kong, and among the most significant provisions in the Joint Declaration were that the Provisions of the ICCPR and the ICESCR as applied to Hong Kong should remain in force after 1997.

In 1990, Mr Fung added, the Hong Kong Government took the initiative of introducing to the legislature a Bill of Rights which reproduced almost verbatim in a domestic statute the provisions of the ICCPR. This passed into law on June 6, 1991.

Mr Fung said under the terms of the Bill of Rights the Judiciary was constrained to give, wherever possible, all previous legislation an interpretation consistent with the Bill of Rights and, where no such interpretation was possible, declared any statutory provision which was inconsistent with the Bill of Rights repealed.