TNAG-1722-FCO40-2415-Future-of-Hong-Kong-Basic-Law-1988 — Page 140

***

Job No. 166880

HANSARD//JUL13:11

HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL · 13 July 1988

1857

nominated by the legal profession, and these will be appointed by the central government.

We have not decided on the formation of the Baisc Law Committee; this should be contained in separate law. But the Basic Law Drafting Committee believes that upon the promulgation of the Basic Law, regulations concerning the formation of the Basic Law Committee should also be promulgated. I think these two are closely related. Before we decide whether we accept the Basic Law we must have an answer on how the Basic Law Committee is to be formed. Only so can we put the minds of the Hong Kong people at ease and provide a fair arrangement.

Sir, with these remarks. I support the motion.

Mrs. Chan Ying-LUN (in Cantonese): Sir, this is a debate I have waited for four years. I believe that during the period between the signing of the Sino-British Joint Declaration in 1984 and the promulgation of Basic Law in 1990. consultation exercises should be conducted on an ongoing basis. It should not be dropped half way. Regarding the draft Basic Law, I have the following three requests to make.

First, the Basic Law must comply with the provisions of the Joint Declara- tion; second, the wording of the articles must be clear enough to enable them to function properly; and third the Chinese Government must keep its promise by seriously considering views expressed by Hong Kong people.

Sir, in this debate I will be centring my speech on these three requests, and my speech will be on the articles of the draft concerning the protection of human rights. I find that some of these articles do not measure up to my first two requests.

Concerning the first request, to comply with the Joint Declaration to a certain extent this is beyond the draft Basic Law, because certain provisions in the draft, for instance those regarding acts to undermine national unity or to subvert the Central Government, are absent in the Joint Declaration. If these provisions were present in the Joint Declaration, Hong Kong people would have found it much more difficult to accept them because provisions like these would cast a shadow over how human rights would be under the Declaration. These provisions could pave the way for legislation like anti-revolutionary laws depriving Hong Kong people of their rights and freedom. I think that anti-treason legislation is necessary. Actually such laws exist in our present legal system, but Hong Kong certainly does not need with expressions like 'subvert central government' and 'undermine national unity'. All we need to do is to amend existing legislation and to stipulate that trial must take place at a court of Hong Kong, and the problem would then be solved. We can also learn from the example of the other autonomous regions, where there are laws passed between 85 and 86, and these laws contain expressions like 'the autonomous region will uphold national unity'. In other words, we only need to say 'Hong Kong SAR

이