XN000022-1997-01-23 — Page 17

16

-

Dr Yeung Sum (in Chinese): I am sorry to see that concerning the ethnic minorities the British Government is still falling short of giving them a full passport. I think it is not only a moral question for anybody but it is also a moral question for the British Government.

Now, back to the Legal Sub-group of the Preparatory Committee, they are recommending that the (inaudible) of legislation and if it is passed by the Preparatory Committee then NPC would accept it and they will have to legislate before 1997. When the Provisional Legislature is to proceed with legislating for these Ordinances, are you going to pass this issue to the Hong Kong courts for handling?

Governor: Just on the first point the honourable gentleman made. I agree it is a moral issue and a question of honour.

Secondly, if the Provisional Legislature purports to legislate before 30 June, I don't even think that some of its noisiest and most ideological and dogmatic adherents have suggested that what it does can become law before 30 June. But if it is involved in a process which clearly produces a law after 30 June, then that is I think what lawyers have all said is likely to be challenged in the courts. But these Shenzhen debates, I don't think could come under any present Hong Kong law. In our judgment they have no constitutional status or legal status whatsoever.

-

#

Can I just add one point about the central issue. It is sometimes argued that this has to be done because these are Bills which were introduced since 1984. Now, is it suggested that the clock should have been stopped in 1984? I don't hear Chinese officials saying, "All the economic growth and development, all the infrastructure investment that has taken place since 1984 in Hong Kong should be removed". I don't know - taken back to Britain, donated to Oxfam - I'm not sure what the proposal is.

Nor do I understand how anybody can suggest that Hong Kong could have lived without changing the law from time to time since 1984. There have been hundreds of new laws passed since 1984. But it is just this handful which appear to have some relationship to political control, which the Chinese side have turned their fire on.

And does the Bill of Rights represent the sort of fundamental change which the Chinese side say they are legitimately opposing? What we are talking about is not legislation which fundamentally changes Hong Kong, but legislation whose purpose is to try to ensure that Hong Kong doesn't change. It is the Chinese side, it is this so- called Legal Sub-group which is proposing the changes, and very fundamental changes they would be too.