"While the courts will remain the ultimate guardian of the Bill, they cannot, as experience shows, be relied on to be the primary guardian, as many see lawyers and courts, as allied to the powerful and wealthy sections of the community, can principally committed to the protection of their interests. Even the philosophy of "two systems" may well entrench the dominance of the present wealthy group.
b)
*
Constitutional Commission
This refers to some sort of council or committee along the lines of the French Conseil
Constitutionnel. Professor Wacks pointed out forcefully a number of advantages of
such a court, but he was hesitated that it might resemble too closely the Basic Law
Committee of the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress." At the end
he preferred the Hong Kong Courts to which the task of interpreting the Bill of Rights
should be entrusted. I think he is right in this particular case, but perhaps not in the
general principle involved. A Constitutional Commission would, for example, have
an opportunity to consider matters in advance, formulate and develop ideas about
individual rights, and so on, while the Basic Law Committee cannot and will not be
have the luxury to dwell into the delicacy and privacy involved in each individual
case, and that none of any official agencies could be relied on.
2.
Changing Perceptions of What is Fundamental
The second difficulty is that what are regarded as fundamental rights by one generation may
not be so considered by another generation. For example, economic and social rights were
regarded to be the most fundamental in the fifties, but would be considered as State-policies
only in the eighties when priority is given to cvil and political rights.
10
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.