TNAG-1722-FCO40-2415-Future-of-Hong-Kong-Basic-Law-1988 — Page 127

Job No. 166880

HANSARD JUL13:08

1844

HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 13 July 1988

complying with the Basic Law when it has to deal with some unforeseeable situations.

Restrictive provisions abound, not only in the chapter which deals with economic policies, but also in other places, such as Chapter VI which deals with education, science, culture, sports, religion, labour and social services policies. Provisions in this chapter should be simplified so that the Basic Law will only lay down a collection of principles for drawing up policies but not the detailed policies themselves.

Article 157 provides that organisations in fields such as education, science, technology, culture, sports, health, professionals, labour, social welfare and religion in the SAR may maintain their relations with the relevant international organisations under the name "Hong Kong, China', as required.

I would like to point out that the majority of sports organisations in Hong Kong, as well as organisations in other fields, have already established close links with the relevant international organisations. The change of status from purely 'Hong Kong' to 'Hong Kong, China' may lead to complications which are not favourable to the local bodies. It is because local bodies may have to apply for admission afresh to the relevant international organisations under the new 'Hong Kong, China' status. This means that their qualifications will have to come under scrutiny again. I am not saying that local bodies, which are already members of the relevant international organisations, are not qualified. But any re-examination of qualifications is likely to cause unnecessary com- plications and this is to no one's advantage.

It would save the local bodies much trouble if they are allowed to remain in the relevant international organisations under the name 'Hong Kong'. Therefore I suggest that the Basic Law stipulates that local bodies can join international organisations under the name of either 'Hong Kong, China', or just "Hong Kong' were appropriate.

Article 169, which deal with the power of interpretation of the Basic Law, stipulates that such power is vested in the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress. I accept this arrangement in principle. However, to demon- strate the high degree of autonomy enjoyed by the SAR, would it be desirable for the standing committee to delegate such power to the Special Administrative Region? Besides those matters concerning national defence or foreign affairs, I am confident that the law courts in Hong Kong can do a good job in inter- preting the Basic Law. Of course the ultimate power to interpret the Basic Law should still be vested with the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress.

After commenting on the draft Basic Law itself, I would like to discuss the methods in constituting the Legislative Council and selecting the Chief Execu- tive of the SAR. A number of alternatives for effecting this are outlined in the annexes to the draft Basic Law.