TNAG-1722-FCO40-2415-Future-of-Hong-Kong-Basic-Law-1988 — Page 117

1834

HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL · 13 July 1988

First, consistency with the Sino-British Joint Declaration. Here, the question is not so much that of adhering to the letter but to the spirit of the Joint Declaration which is that of 'one country, two systems', ‘a high degree of autonomy', preservation of the existing so-called 'capitalist system' with its attendant legal, social and economic systems, and a government ‘accountable to the legislative' which is to be 'constituted by elections'.

)

Second, the enforceability and justiciability of the provisions in the Basic Law. Here, the concern is whether or not particular articles are at all necessary and, if so, whether or not the drafting is such that they are not enforceable or justiciable legally or at least the interpretation of them is open to doubt, or that they empower the future authorities so excessively that they become meaningless as 'constitutional' provisions safeguarding the freedom of the people.

Third, the consensual concept of evolution. Here, the consideration is two-fold. One question is: Is the new scheme of things such that in our efforts to evolve towards it during the transition, some if not all of the beneficial elecments of our existing systems will be wiped out, or such that our existing system is effectively frozen for the whole duration of the transition? A second question is: Are there articles which effectively proscribe the further and continued evolu- tion of our existing system?

Sir, I might be simply echoing the sentiments of our Senior Member Miss DUNN, whose views are not unlike our three considerations, but which are put so much more eloquently in her speech.

Sir, the Constitutional Development Panel has not concluded it deliberations yet. We will within the coming month submit a report to the OMELCO In-house meeting which comprises all non-government Members of the Execu- tive Council and this Council, with the recommendation that it be published for public information. You will, Sir, readily appreciate that OMELCO is not part of Hong Kong's formal constitutional machinery. You may, however, wearing your other hat not as President of this Council but as Governor of Hong Kong, wish to consider whether or not it would be appropriate for the report, when published, to be conveyed, through diplomatic channels, to the relevant authorities of the People's Republic of China.

I will now attempt to outline to you, Sir, and to the people of Hong Kong the preliminary consensual views of the Constitutional Development Panel. In order not to pre-empt the report or the views of my hon. Colleagues who will speak after me, my treatment will, of necessity, be brief and inexhaustive. For convenience, I will present them under a number of headings which are entirely my own but which, I believe, do not do injustice to the panel.

(1) Boundaries and status of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region. Members are of the view that administrative boundaries of the region ought to be part of the Basic Law and consider that a provision should be inserted in Chapter I preferably in or after article I referring to a map showing the