TNAG-1397-FCO40-1869-Future-of-Hong-Kong-Basic-Law-1985 — Page 252

-7

Q.

A.

The political systems of Britain, the States and France are

not applicable in China because China does not practise the

separation of powers. In the States, the Supreme Court is vested with the right of interpretation of the constitution,

and it is the Supreme Court to decide whether there is a

violation of the Constitution. In China, it is the NPC

Standing Committee that is vested with such power as that of

the US Supreme Court. The executive, legislative and judicial

authorities are accountable to the NPC and the NPC Standing

Committee.

Some people in Hong Kong suggest that the interpretation of

the Basic Law concerning the relationship between the Central

and Hong Kong as well as the defence and the diplomacy of Hong

Kong should be handled by the NPC Standing Committee, while

the interpretation of the Basic Law on the internal affairs of

Hong Kong should be handled by the local judicature.

We still have to study these problems and a decision is yet to

be made.

The Contents of the Basic Law Should Not be too Detailed

૨.

A.

Some people in Hong Kong propose that the contents of the Basic Law should be more detailed. It is because if the principles

are too broad, it will give rise to disputes for different ways

of interpretation. Do you think that such an idea is desirable?

There has been controversy over the contents of the Basic Law

whether it should be written in brief or in detail. The

legislation in China is rather brief, but descriptions of laws

are detailed in other countries. During the Sino-British talks,

there had been divergent views on whether the Joint Declaration

should be written in brief or in detail; the British side opined

that it should be written in detail whereas the Chinese side

maintained that it should be written in brief. Mr PENG Zhen

had said that the contents of the Basic Law should not be too