TNAG-1722-FCO40-2415-Future-of-Hong-Kong-Basic-Law-1988 — Page 163

|

HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL · 14 July 1988

1881

only in our external business but also in local commerce and in Government. Recognition of this important matter in the Basic Law would provide both assurance of a continuation of English language training and development in Hong Kong and also an encouragement to local people to maintain a bilingual philosophy. In my view, the English language will continue to be more important to Hong Kong than Putonghua.

The draft Basic Law includes too many policy guidelines in legal language. These sit uneasily with factual legal definitions. Policy is flexible and must be capable of adjustment to meet changing circumstances. Mr. Li Hou and Mr. Lu Ping, during their recent sojourn in Hong Kong, listened patiently to many voices representing varied Hong Kong interests but all with this message- separate law from policy. It was therefore suggested that policy guidelines should be lifted out of the Basic Law and placed into an annex which need not have precise legal effect. Before leaving this point it should be emphasised that the obvious intent behind the inclusion of these policy guidelines is recognised and appreciated by all in this community.

It is necessary to ensure that there is no ambiguity about the right of the Hong Kong SAR to have, to modify, to operate, and to enjoy, the fruits of its own taxation system. For this purpose, it is suggested that articles 106 and 108 be amalgamated with article 108 taking precedence. Article 107 is in fact a policy guideline which cannot be given legal status in Hong Kong's circumstances, except by defining the boundaries and parameters of the actual tax rates, an impossible proposition. Once again however the meaning of article 107 is helpful and benign and will serve happily as a policy guideline.

The intention of articles 120 and 121 is to ensure that Hong Kong and PRC export quotas and preferences shall remain separate. This will require the agreement of the other parties involved and will involve negotiation with these parties. I am satisfied that the Hong Kong Government is well aware of this need and that adequate steps are being taken through the JLG.

However, I wish to draw attention to a mistake in the drafting of article 121. The authority given in the draft for the SAR to issue certificates of origin does not include certificates of foreign origin, including Chinese origin, which are needed for the huge and expanding re-export market. In fact, although the Hong Kong Government itself does not issue certificates of origin for re-exports from Hong Kong, the other organisations approved by the Hong Kong Government for the issue of certificates of origin do, in fact, issue many thousands of these documents every month. These are issued under the same legal and inspection procedures as all other certificates within Hong Kong's unique system of certification. I believe it is important to our economic future that the Hong Kong Government remains centrally responsible for the integrity of the entire system. Certificates of origin for Hong Kong products should refer to Hong Kong origin and not, as has been suggested by some, as Hong Kong, China origin-which could lead to confusion.