TNAG-1397-FCO40-1869-Future-of-Hong-Kong-Basic-Law-1985 — Page 97

12

✓

2)

Committee for the Legal System under the NPC Standing

Committee also said, 'There is no contradiction

between the concept of 'one country, two systems' and

the Constitution. Consideration had already been given

to the issue of Hong Kong when formulating Article 31

of the Constitution in 1982. Hence, there is no need

to amend the Constitution when implementing the 'one

country, two systems". formula. Article 31, a special provision, is addressing Article 1. (It is not known whether it addresses Article 5 as well.) Therefore,

it can be seen that Beijing's adamant position on the

Basic Law is not to amend the Constitution.

Proviso: There are always 'buts' in legal documents

for dealing with exceptional cases. The legal

terminology for this in China is

(proviso).

The amendment suggested by local people is to make a

supplement to Article 31 of the Constitution, expressly

stating that other provisions in the Constitution are

not applicable to special administrative regions. That

is to say, a formal entry of proviso is to be made in

the Constitution (Article 31). A message brought back

from Beijing by Mr Louis CHA, one of the Hong Kong

members of the Drafting Committee, revealed the standpoint

of Beijing officials that the Basic Law of Hong Kong

passed by the NPC will prescribe the systems to be

instituted in the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region

(HKSAR) in the light of specific conditions. Given its

specific conditions, Hong Kong is allowed not to comply with the various provisions of the Constitution. This is

an exemption conferred by the Constitution itself. As matter of fact, this should be regarded as complying with

the Constitution and by no means running counter to it.

(Please see the serial article 'A Ramble on Participating

in the Drafting Committee', an interview with Mr Louis CHA published in Ming Pao from 23 July to 1 August 1985.)