OFFICIAL RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
ミ猭Ы穦某筁祘タΑ魁
Thursday, 24 April 1997
るら琍戳
The Council met at half-past Two o'clock
と230だ穦某秨﹍
MEMBERS PRESENT
畊某
THE PRESIDENT
THE HONOURABLE ANDREW WONG WANG-FAT, O.B.E., J.P.
畊独Щ祇某O.B.E., J.P.
THE HONOURABLE ALLEN LEE PENG-FEI, C.B.E., J.P.
腜某C.B.E., J.P.
THE HONOURABLE MARTIN LEE CHU-MING, Q.C., J.P.
琖皇某Q.C., J.P.
DR THE HONOURABLE DAVID LI KWOK-PO, O.B.E., LL.D. (CANTAB), J.P.
瓣腳某O.B.E., LL.D. (CANTAB), J.P.
THE HONOURABLE SZETO WAH
畕地某
THE HONOURABLE EDWARD HO SING-TIN, O.B.E., J.P.
︙┯ぱ某O.B.E., J.P.
THE HONOURABLE RONALD JOSEPH ARCULLI, O.B.E., J.P.
甃ㄎ瞶某O.B.E., J.P.
THE HONOURABLE MRS MIRIAM LAU KIN-YEE, O.B.E., J.P.
糂胺祸某O.B.E., J.P.
THE HONOURABLE ALBERT CHAN WAI-YIP
朝岸穨某
THE HONOURABLE CHEUNG MAN-KWONG
眎ゅ某
THE HONOURABLE CHIM PUI-CHUNG
糕蚌┚某
THE HONOURABLE FREDERICK FUNG KIN-KEE
毒浪膀某
THE HONOURABLE MICHAEL HO MUN-KA
︙庇古某
THE HONOURABLE EMILY LAU WAI-HING
糂紌某
THE HONOURABLE LEE WING-TAT
ッ笷某
THE HONOURABLE ERIC LI KA-CHEUNG, O.B.E., J.P.
產不某O.B.E., J.P.
THE HONOURABLE FRED LI WAH-MING
地某
THE HONOURABLE HENRY TANG YING-YEN, J.P.
璣某J.P.
THE HONOURABLE JAMES TO KUN-SUN
襖略ビ某
DR THE HONOURABLE SAMUEL WONG PING-WAI, O.B.E., F.Eng., J.P.
独篿某O.B.E., F.Eng., J.P.
THE HONOURABLE HOWARD YOUNG, J.P.
法У地某J.P.
THE HONOURABLE ZACHARY WONG WAI-YIN
独岸藉某
THE HONOURABLE CHRISTINE LOH KUNG-WAI
嘲糠某
THE HONOURABLE JAMES TIEN PEI-CHUN, O.B.E., J.P.
バ玊某O.B.E., J.P.
THE HONOURABLE CHAN KAM-LAM
朝挪狶某
THE HONOURABLE CHAN WING-CHAN
朝篴篱某
THE HONOURABLE CHAN YUEN-HAN
朝胞糭某
THE HONOURABLE ANDREW CHENG KAR-FOO
綠產碔某
THE HONOURABLE CHENG YIU-TONG
綠模磁某
THE HONOURABLE CHOY KAN-PUI, J.P.
讲蚌某J.P.
THE HONOURABLE DAVID CHU YU-LIN
Χギ棚某
THE HONOURABLE ALBERT HO CHUN-YAN
︙玊く某
THE HONOURABLE IP KWOK-HIM
腑瓣辆某
THE HONOURABLE LAU CHIN-SHEK
糂ホ某
THE HONOURABLE AMBROSE LAU HON-CHUEN, J.P.
糂簙煌某J.P.
DR THE HONOURABLE LAW CHEUNG-KWOK
霉不瓣某
THE HONOURABLE LAW CHI-KWONG
霉璓某
THE HONOURABLE LEE KAI-MING
币某
THE HONOURABLE LEUNG YIU-CHUNG
辩模┚某
THE HONOURABLE BRUCE LIU SING-LEE
郭Θ某
THE HONOURABLE MARGARET NG
艷祸某
THE HONOURABLE SIN CHUNG-KAI
虫ヲ昂某
THE HONOURABLE TSANG KIN-SHING
纯胺Θ某
THE HONOURABLE MRS ELIZABETH WONG CHIEN CHI-LIEN, C.B.E., I.S.O., J.P.
独窥ㄤ军某C.B.E., I.S.O., J.P.
MEMBERS ABSENT
畊某
THE HONOURABLE MRS SELINA CHOW LIANG SHUK-YEE, O.B.E., J.P.
㏄辩睶┥某O.B.E., J.P.
THE HONOURABLE NGAI SHIU-KIT, O.B.E., J.P.
ぶ城某O.B.E., J.P.
THE HONOURABLE LAU WONG-FAT, O.B.E., J.P.
糂祇某O.B.E., J.P.
DR THE HONOURABLE EDWARD LEONG CHE-HUNG, O.B.E., J.P.
辩醇翬某O.B.E., J.P.
DR THE HONOURABLE HUANG CHEN-YA, M.B.E.
独綺笽某M.B.E.
DR THE HONOURABLE PHILIP WONG YU-HONG
独﹜グ某
DR THE HONOURABLE YEUNG SUM
法此某
THE HONOURABLE LEE CHEUK-YAN
某
THE HONOURABLE PAUL CHENG MING-FUN
綠癡某
DR THE HONOURABLE ANTHONY CHEUNG BING-LEUNG
眎▆某
THE HONOURABLE CHEUNG HON-CHUNG
眎簙┚某
THE HONOURABLE LO SUK-CHING
霉睲某
THE HONOURABLE MOK YING-FAN
馋莱某
THE HONOURABLE NGAN KAM-CHUEN
肅繟某
DR THE HONOURABLE JOHN TSE WING-LING
谅ッ闹某
THE HONOURABLE LAWRENCE YUM SIN-LING
ヴ到圭某
PUBLIC OFFICERS ATTENDING
畊そ戮
THE HONOURABLE MRS ANSON CHAN, C.B.E., J.P.
CHIEF SECRETARY
︽現Ы某ガ現朝よネC.B.E., J.P.
THE HONOURABLE DONALD TSANG YAM-KUEN, O.B.E., J.P.
FINANCIAL SECRETARY
︽現Ы某癩現纯疆舦ネO.B.E., J.P.
THE HONOURABLE JEREMY FELL MATHEWS, C.M.G., J.P.
ATTORNEY GENERAL
︽現Ы某現皑碔到ネC.M.G., J.P.
MR GORDON SIU KWING-CHUE, J.P.
SECRETARY FOR TRANSPORT
笲块拷琖ネJ.P.
MR NICHOLAS NG WING-FUI, J.P.
SECRETARY FOR CONSTITUTIONAL AFFAIRS
舅ㄆ叭篴ネJ.P.
MR DOMINIC WONG SHING-WAH, O.B.E., J.P.
SECRETARY FOR HOUSING
┬独琍地ネO.B.E., J.P.
MR RAFAEL HUI SI-YAN, J.P.
SECRETARY FOR FINANCIAL SERVICES
癩竒ㄆ叭砛くネJ.P.
MR JOSEPH WONG WING-PING, J.P.
SECRETARY FOR EDUCATION AND MANPOWER
毙▅参膚ッキネJ.P.
MR BOWEN LEUNG PO-WING, J.P.
SECRETARY FOR PLANNING, ENVIRONMENT AND LANDS
砏购吏挂現辩腳篴ネJ.P.
MISS DENISE YUE CHUNG-YEE, J.P.
SECRETARY FOR TRADE AND INDUSTRY
坝玕﹙┥J.P.
THE HONOURABLE LAM WOON-KWONG, J.P.
SECRETARY FOR THE CIVIL SERVICE
そ叭ㄆ叭狶坟ネJ.P.
MRS YAU TSANG KA-LAI, CARRIE, J.P.
SECRETARY FOR SECURITY
玂ぷ纯產腞J.P.
CLERK IN ATTENDANCE
畊
MR RICKY FUNG CHOI-CHEUNG, SECRETARY GENERAL
毒更不ネ
PURSUANT TO STANDING ORDER 4AA, HIS EXCELLENCY THE GOVERNOR, THE RIGHT HONOURABLE CHRISTOPHER FRANCIS PATTEN, ATTENDED TO ADDRESS THE COUNCIL AND TO RECEIVE QUESTIONS.
羆服碸﹚眃ネㄌ沮穦某盽砏材4AA兵砏﹚畊穦某セЫ璓勉钡借高
畊叫︗某膥尿ミ单羆服秈穦某芔
翠羆服
畊羆服穦碞︗莉硄ぇ4兜肈ヘ氮某借高︗某矗借高莉眔氮滦ぇ矗兜虏祏ぇ蛤秈借高璶―哪赣氮滦ぃぇ矪叫︗某庢もボ種腑瓣辆某
腑瓣辆某拜羆服ネи稱碞戳翠闽み翠ッ﹡チ㎝ッ﹡痙舦拜肈矗拜ㄤ龟ミ猭Ыㄆ–筳る常穦Τ闽ㄆ叭〆穦ず蛤秈硂拜肈沮и-
┮眔戈產笵い璣蛮よ盡產舱ず碞硂よ秈︽╯穦荷еи-
ユぃ筁筁祘い產常谋眔翠カチ惠璶睲贰笵膥尿玂痙翠ッ﹡チ舦ぃ┋и-
瞷笵い璣蛮よ硂拜肈ゼ眔醚いよボ穦パ羬ミ穦ミ猭τ沮眡翠現┎程σ納硓筁フ兵ㄒ紉高翠種ǎ︙翠┎瞷ぃ酚翠┎ミ初フ兵ㄒ紉高翠カチ種ǎㄏ翠カチ罙ヘ玡祇甶埃-
癸ゼㄓ紐納
GOVERNOR: I am glad the Honourable Member has asked that question because it gives us the opportunity to get one or two facts on the record. I listened to an Honourable Member, who is, I think, a member of the Special Administrative Region (SAR) Executive Council (Designate), on the radio this morning, opining on this issue and I welcome this opportunity of informing him what the facts are, as well as answering the question.
First of all, I would like to make it plain that there is no White Bill or Blue Bill in draft. No White Bill or Blue Bill because there is not, alas as yet, a consensus on all the issues which we would need to cover in legislation. We have got a consensus on about 95% of those issues, but there still is not agreement on a number of issues, such as the position of adopted children, such as the way in which the children of ethnic minorities would claim right of abode after 1997, such as the position of the children of recent immigrants from China and how they would claim right of abode, whether it would come automatically on birth.
I think it is a pity that we have not got a consensus and I think it is a pity that we did not get a consensus way back last Autumn when I think that it was well within our grasp. Why no consensus? Not, I think, because of any fundamental differences over right of abode, but because I think some Chinese officials saw the right of abode issue as a way of trying to provide legitimization for the provisional legislature. I do not think these arguments have had anything to do, or nothing substantial to do, with the right of abode.
Despite that, we have covered about 95% of the ground. Is it the case that the position we have taken up results in people in Hong Kong, by and large, not knowing what their rights are or where they stand? No, it is not. We have set out, for example, in this pamphlet very clearly what there is a consensus on so far the 95% of issues on which there is a consensus, and our Immigration Department has a hotline answering people's questions on all the issues covered in here every day. So, the fact that we have declined to do what we have been pressed to do does not mean that people are not aware of what has been agreed so far.
Secondly, is it the case that legislation is essential before 1 July? No, it is not the case. It would have been desirable if we could have got legislation by now. I would have liked us to have been able to legislate on this issue as we did on the Court of Final Appeal through this constitutional body. But even though that would have been desirable, it is not essential. It is not essential because Article 24 of the Basic Law provides the Director of Immigration with the legal framework within which she can take decisions after 1 July, and in our judgment, it will not be necessary to have legislation on right of abode on the statute book for some weeks after 1 July.
Let me just remind the Legislative Council what the Attorney General has said on this issue. "On 1 July 1997 the Basic Law of the Hong Kong SAR will enter into force. The right of abode of permanent residents of the region will be provided for under Article 24 of the Basic Law." And he goes on. "Before domestic legislation is enacted the Director of Immigration can make her decisions in right of abode matters on the basis of the provisions of Article 24 of the Basic Law."
Next, what are the consequences of the provisional legislature trying to legislate on these matters? The consequences have been spelt out very clearly. They were spelt out, for example, once again by the Attorney General. "If legislation to amend the Immigration Ordinance is enacted in a manner which raises a doubt as to the validity of the amending legislation, then it is inevitable that that point will be taken in any proceedings before a tribunal or court in which a person's status as a permanent resident is in issue. Whatever the outcome of such proceedings until the proceedings and any appeal are finally disposed of, the state of the law in the vital area of immigration will be uncertain. From past experience, we know that a significant proportion of judicial review cases each year relate to immigration matters."
In the last two years, there have been 200, or just over 200, legal challenges to the Director of Immigration and the Secretary for Security. In the same period, I think I am right in saying, over 450 statutory petitions to the Governor in Council. This is a litigious area, and if there is any doubt about the basis of legislation that will lead to more action in the courts.
If there are some Honourable Members or others who doubt the legal advice of the Attorney General, they might listen to what the Chairman of the Bar Association has said on exactly the same subject. "The difficulty about the provisional legislature passing a law relating to right of abode is that this is a sort of issue that you often attract litigation, and to have it passed by the provisional legislature will add to the controversy and to the uncertainty."
So, legislation is not required before 1 July and if legislation is put through by the provisional legislature, then it is a pound to a penny that that will attract legal challenges after 1 July.
In those circumstances, we made what I note one newspaper called "a generous compromise offer" that we would provide a Blue Bill that would attempt to give the community even greater certainty than exists already, and that the legislature of the day would legislate on that from 1 July. That was the "generous compromise" that we put. It is still on the table. I very much hope it will be taken up.
I would just want to underline one point. We do not want unnecessary arguments at this stage in the transition, but for us there is one fundamental principle which we are not going to move away from and, that is, that the spine of this society, that what distinguishes this society more than anything else, is the rule of law and we are not doing to do anything now or in the future which, in our judgment, undermines or calls into question the rule of law.
腑瓣辆某拜钮Ч羆服ネ弧杠иΩボ綺佩渤ㄓぃフ兵ㄒΑ秈︽吭高┪ぃ倒翠カチ荷е秆∕硂拜肈琌羆服ネ粄いよ琌綿㏕羬ミ猭穦︗ㄏㄤ眔猭┦τ硂妓暗羆服ネ瞦代いよ琌硂ヘ┮挡狦⊿Τ秆∕硂翠カチのミ猭Ыㄆ常獶盽辨荷е秆∕拜肈钮羆服ネ弧瞷⊿Τフ兵ㄒ弧程ノ屡兵ㄒê╯澈琌Τ临琌⊿Τи钮Ч羆服ネ弧杠粄⊿Τ瞶パ⊿Τ硂妓薄猵琌稱崩勉弧るら玡ゼゲ惠璶Τ兵ㄒノ︽現惫琁ㄓ秆∕狦琌硂妓杠現┎碞礚斗ミ猭Ы玂ㄆ叭〆穦籔и-
癚阶τ钡ノ硂よ猭秆∕獽叫拜羆服ネσ納酚現┎祘酚現┎ㄓ砞稱矗ユフ兵ㄒ吭高翠カチ種ǎㄏ翠カチ睲贰笵薄猵羆服ネ谋眔硂ぃ琌或拜肈êㄇ勾﹡┪局Τ瓣﹡痙舦㎝瓣臔酚カチ琌稱笵и纯庢︽筁吭高穦穦カチ常矗硂拜肈辨秆睲贰辨荷е﹚猭ㄒ琵-
Τ猭ㄌ
GOVERNOR: I answered the Honourable gentleman's question extremely fully. I do not think that he has raised any additional points that I did not cover in my first answer in what he has just said. But I am sure that if he reads my answer afterwards, he will find it contains all the information to answer his second group of questions, which appeared to me to be identical to the first lot.
畊產不某
MR ERIC LI: Mr Governor, my question touches on both human rights and the right of abode and the star person in question is none other than the Commissioner of Police himself. I am of course referring to the right of the Commissioner to reside in the government quarter in breach of the double housing benefit rule.
This is a subject matter of the Public Accounts Committee (PAC) Report No. 27 in which the PAC is unanimous in supporting the Director of Audit's finding that the double benefit rules prescribed by the Executive Council have been breached. We were also seeking for a ruling or a more authoritative statement from the Executive Council. Now, the Committee is surprised to hear the reply of the Chief Secretary yesterday when she introduced a Government Minute in response to the PAC Report concerned. The Chief Secretary is, of course, saying that she will do exactly nothing.
Now, the question is the PAC Report and all the arguments are now in the public forum. Can you still let the Chief Secretary get away with a no-action answer, and with the Executive Council not even taking a decision in the matter, and be accountable to the public openly and directly?
GOVERNOR: I do not think that the expression "get away with" is entirely appropriate when talking about the Chief Secretary. It is certainly not an expression I would dare to use in the company of the Chief Secretary and I am surprised at the Honourable gentleman's audacity.
I do not have anything to add to what the Chief Secretary has said but I will, in view of the fact that the Honourable gentleman has raised it again, of course write to him subsequently about it after having had a word with the Chief Secretary. But at present I do not have anything to add.
Can I just add one point as a footnote? It is entirely proper for the PAC of a legislature like this to concern itself with the minutiae of public spending and the work that is done in this area is one of the things that keeps the Government of Hong Kong clean and, I hope, competent. So, I in no way criticize what the PAC have concerned themselves with. The only point I wanted to add was that I hope that this controversy will not in any way be thought by some to tarnish the reputation or image of the Commissioner of Police who is a very distinguished public servant, one of the finest heads of our Police Force that this community has had, and I think that the community has every reason to be proud of him and proud of his record.
MR ERIC LI: Mr President, I certainly concur with the last remark of the Governor, and if the Governor would care to look at the Report there is no direct criticism directed at the Commissioner of Police or his integrity in that sort of manner. But I think the PAC should be fearless and forthright ......
GOVERNOR: Absolutely.
MR ERIC LI: Just as we would expect the Chief Secretary and civil servants in putting a point through when a matter of public policy is being placed under controversy. We are concurring with your own official, Mr Governor, the Director of Audit in that case, so it is not entirely a matter between the Legislative Council and the Government. I think there is an independent auditor who has expressed that view too.
I am directed by the full Committee this afternoon to write directly to the Executive Council and the Standing Committee on Directorate Salaries and Conditions of Service on the matter, and Mr Governor, can I expect that you would direct both these bodies to give the public, and of course the PAC, a full reply stating the reason and the position of the matter?
GOVERNOR: First of all, I would not wish the PAC to be anything other than fearless and forthright, and I hope that those will be the watchwords that govern its behaviour for the foreseeable future.
Secondly, we shall look forward on the Executive Council to receiving the communication from the Honourable gentleman and responding to it suitably.
畊辩模┚某
辩模┚某拜畊獺羆服ネ常笵程疭跋快そ"疭快"崩Τ闽そチ︑パ㎝穦"舦癶"吭高ゅンτ瞷崩綪硂ゅン﹛タ琌羆服ネ種秸﹛硂︗﹛秸玡纯蠢羆服ネ崩綪筁兵耕秈˙ㄇ翠舦猭兵ㄒ產常笵舦簿ユΤ瓣癘常ㄓ翠┮ぃ虫ゎ翠︓ㄤ瓣睲贰ǎ硂︗﹛琌︗"ㄢ"祏丁ず弧ㄢ贺ぃ弧杠叫拜羆服ネ癸硂︗秸┕疭快﹛瞷琌骸種㎡羆服ネ琌钡篈㎡程Τ肚籇硂︗﹛らΤ羬ミ猭穦ざ残硂吭高ゅン璝痷Θㄆ芠琌絋﹚羬ミ猭穦猭﹚︗硂籔羆服ネ绊現郸は叫拜羆服ネ︙矪瞶硂拜肈羆服ネ琌穦甧г硂贺瞷禜膥尿㎡
GOVERNOR: When the Secretary concerned worked as a key member of my Administration, he worked extremely hard and competently and professionally in the interests of Hong Kong. He has a considerable reputation in our public service and I think that I can say without any reservation that I received from him great support which also displayed at every time considerable integrity.
I would never seek to put a public official like him in a position which could be awkward or embarrassing for him as a civil servant, and I hope that those with whom he is now working will behave in the same way. I think it is important that we avoid putting our excellent Civil Service in positions which can cause difficulties for them as public servants. The Civil Service in Hong Kong, independent, meritocratic, politically neutral, is one of the main reasons for Hong Kong's success and I think we should all be very careful not to do anything which affects the Civil Service adversely.
It is in the nature of, I suppose, our attempts to help an incoming Administration at this stage in the transition that there may from time to time be difficulties that individuals will find themselves in difficult positions. We should try to minimize those difficulties and those difficult positions. I hope that that will be borne in mind by some of those who have, in my view, wrong-headedly pressed us to help with the work of the provisional legislature something for the reasons which I mentioned earlier, our concern about the rule of law, we would not of course do. But were we to do so, it would create far more of the sort of problems which the Honourable gentleman has alluded to.
辩模┚某拜畊и-
讽礛ぃ稱ǎ硂贺瞷禜瞷堡ささら硂贺瞷禜龟龟иぃ辨そ叭倒禜琌"ㄢ"硂癸ゼㄓ俱そ叭笲穦盿ㄓゴ阑堡硂ぃ┋瞷禜㎝ぃ┋ㄆ龟タ耚и-
泊玡叫拜羆服ネ狦硂︗そ叭ら痷羬ミ猭穦秆睦硂吭高ゅン羆服ネ穦妓矪瞶㎡穦いゎ硂兜秸∕﹚㎡
GOVERNOR: I very much hope that some of the concerns expressed by the Honourable gentleman and elsewhere will be borne in mind by the SAR Government Designate and those who lead it. It is important that the integrity and professionalism of Hong Kong's Civil Service remain unquestioned after 1 July as they are unquestioned today.
畊霉璓某
霉璓某拜畊羆服ネるら借高羆服丁纯氮и矗Τ闽敖寸奸拜肈讽現┎и-
矗ㄑㄇ戈︳璸Τぶㄠ担るら穦才膀セ猭材兵砏﹚局Τ翠﹡痙舦讽ぱ睲贰禗и-
⊿Τヴ︙格禜陪ボ穦瞷敖寸奸琌るи-
眔眡ㄓる龟悔计竒耕る糤き︓せる计膥尿糤硂だ胔好現┎港獺の現┎琌Τ矪瞶硂拜肈るら借高羆服丁ず羆服ネごぃ笵硂ンㄆ祇ネи稱笵瞷現┎硂拜肈璸购︙現┎琌痷粄痷矪瞶硂拜肈㎡程Τㄇ某翠現┎êㄇ才膀セ猭材兵τ妮翠ッ﹡チず┮ネ秈︽祅癘糵﹚-
戈ぃ羆服ネ癸硂ㄇ某Τ︙莱㎡
GOVERNOR: I think I am right in saying that a paper was presented to the relevant Legislative Council Panel this morning on this issue, and that paper, of course, gave some indications of the sort of steps that we are considering to take, and I do not think I could usefully add to that, save perhaps to make these two obvious points.
First of all, it is extremely important that people do not seek to jump the queue; do not seek to enter Hong Kong illegally. When they do so, difficult and unattractive as it is, there is only one thing which a responsible Government can do after the law has run its course. That we have done, and that we will continue to do, because not to take that action would send all the wrong signals across the border and would encourage more illegal immigration rather than the reverse.
Secondly, knowing the entitlements that exist under the Basic Law, we have been trying for some time to minimize the problems which the SAR Government will face after 1 July by increasing the one-way permit quotas and, in particular, by trying to balance those quotas so that we absorb as many children as possible before 1 July as we can. We increased the quota, as you know, to 150 a day and took that increase into account in our planning of resources for the future, such as the provision of primary school and secondary school classes.
Now, for that quota to work effectively, it does require the assistance of the authorities in China. We have been discussing ideas for trying to make the system work better, for example, by making it more transparent so that parents could know how long they were likely to have to wait before their children could come into Hong Kong. There are things like that which I think we will perhaps need to implement. But what is essential is that we should have the assistance, the full assistance of the authorities in China, in making the system work.
霉璓某拜畊羆服ネ⊿Τ氮и借高场だぃ稱矗るら穦某и-
矗ㄑ戈琌Ч︳俱ンㄆ狦Τ畊讽ぱ穦某某临癘眔и纯弧и荡癸胔好翠現┎碞硂拜肈肚穦耕"矰繷"弧杠Τ瞷現┎弧穦膥尿秈︽肚иㄌ礛膥尿獺êㄇ"矰繷"亮ē穦耕翠現┎肚Τ╯澈現┎瞷琌Τよ猭ㄓ秈︽肚㎡るら穦某钡る糤碩糉甡笷せκ陪瞷︑计搭ぶぃ敖寸计搭ぶ╯澈現┎Τㄇ狦耞よ猭㎡
GOVERNOR: Well, I am prepared to concede that my predictive capacities were not as extensive as the Honourable gentleman's. But the one message it seems to me important to send out clearly in order to reduce the attractiveness, or so-called attractiveness, of whatever offers snakeheads offer, is that Hong Kong is going to continue to police its immigration regulations vigorously.
If we take actions which make it looks as though the rumours of amnesties or of slackening in the rigour of our procedures may have some basis in fact, if we act in that sort of way, then it will play into the hands of the snakeheads. Every indication that the Government may change its mind inevitably would condemn more children to the dangers of the snakehead operations and that is why we have to be absolutely firm as well as fair in trying to make this difficult policy stick.
畊艷祸某
MISS MARGARET NG: Mr President, may I refer to the Governor's plan or proposal to publish a Blue Bill on 30 June on the right of abode? Mr President, would the Governor agree with me that the position of the Hong Kong Government about the provisional legislature's legitimacy before 1 July and after 1 July is exactly the same?
Now, the Governor said that no legislation is necessary before 1 July. I think he said that it is alright to have legislation a few weeks after 1 July. But a few weeks after 1 July, the legislature of the day is still the provisional legislature and so, according to the Bar's view, the legitimacy of that legislature is still open to litigation. So, any legislation passed by it is still not completely safe.
In view of that, is there any reason why this Administration should not put the Blue Bill before this Council so that this Council, the legitimacy of which is not in doubt, can pass that law before 1 July to give certainty to the people of Hong Kong? Thank you, Mr President.
GOVERNOR: As I said in my earlier reply, I would very much have liked to have legislated on the right of abode as we legislated on the Court of Final Appeal with the approval of this Council and with the agreement of Chinese officials. I think that would have been incomparably the best way forward.
And to suggest somehow that this legislature or this Government has no role in determining these matters is an absurdity. We are not talking about definitions of Chinese nationality. Definitions of Chinese nationality are matters, quite properly, for the National People's Congress. What we are talking about is the right of abode here in Hong Kong, and it is perfectly within the powers of this Council to deal with that issue. The fact that it was a legitimate issue in the Joint Liaison Group (JLG) is perhaps best recognized by the fact that it has been discussed in every JLG meeting since JLG XX, and I think has been mentioned in every communique of the JLG since JLG XX.
However, our proposals that we should legislate, even our proposals that we should legislate partly, for foreign nationals for example, were rejected by China. So, the position we find ourselves in today is one in which we could only go ahead with legislation at the risk of a, I imagine, major argument. And at this stage within a few weeks of the transition, I am anxious to have fewer arguments rather than more.
The situation would, I concede to the Honourable lady, be totally different if we were obliged to have legislation on the statute book before the transition as we are obliged to have legislation on the statute book before the public holidays on 1 and 2 July. But we are not obliged, for the reasons which I mentioned earlier as regards Article 24 of the Basic Law. In those circumstances, the proposal, I think, that we have put which I still hope will be taken up, is to publish a White Bill but to delay legislation until the legislature of the day takes office on 1 July.
Now the Honourable lady raises the questions of legality of that operation. There are, I suppose, two sorts of legal challenge that people might make to the provisional legislature. The first one, which is of direct concern to me because I am at present head of the Hong Kong Administration, is a challenge against any legislation which appears on the statute book after 1 July at the end of a process which began on Saturday mornings in Shenzhen before 30 June, before 1 July. Now, every or most of the lawyers whom I have seen commenting on this seem to think that it is very likely that there will be legal challenges to legislation produced in that way.
The second area in which there may be legal challenges is, I imagine, in the relationship between the provisional legislature and the commitments to a Legislative Council made in the Joint Declaration and the Basic Law. Those will continue, I would judge, to be questions of international argument, whatever happens here in Hong Kong. But those questions of legal validity, are not ones that I can, as it were, take up at this time. What I have to deal with are those matters which, as it were, affect Hong Kong while I am directly responsible for it. But I do not doubt, as the Honourable lady says, that there will be some who raise legal challenges to the provisional legislature, not because of what it has done before 30 June but for what it has done after 1 July.
MISS MARGARET NG: Mr President, I hear the Governor say that he has no doubt in his mind that it is entirely proper and beneficial for this Council to enact on the right of abode before 1 July. In that case, can the Governor agree with me that we should go ahead with doing what we consider to be right in the hope that other people would agree with us, rather than avoid doing what is right and in fact do what might be a wrong in response to the thought that other people might also do a wrong?
GOVERNOR: I am very keen on trying to do what is right. I am also keen on trying to minimize, rather than maximize, argument and controversy in an area where it is important that there is the maximum certainty and where it is important that there is the minimum legal challenge. I do not doubt that if we were to bring forward legislation before 30 June that itself would be a subject of very considerable controversy with Chinese officials, and I am not sure that would provide the sort of certainty that we require in this area.
What I am determined to do, even if I am not prepared to do as much as I would have liked to have done, what I am certainly not prepared to do is what I think is actually wrong, which is a slightly different way of putting it. I repeat, if it was remotely the case that we needed the legal certainty of something on the statute book before 30 June, I would have no doubt that we should go ahead. But that is not the legal advice that we have been given.
Now, let me make just one other point which I hope the Honourable lady will take in good part. One thing which I do not think would be helpful at this stage in the transition it is not very helpful any time is the politics of gesture. And let me put that in context. We were pressed by this Legislative Council, by a majority in this Legislative Council, many of whom I see here today, to legislate on Basic Law Article 23, across the board. I have got, I sometimes come as Honourable Members know, armed with quotations and voting records. I have done it today, but there is a very nice lady who often waits for my arrival and departure at the Legislative Council Building who said to me as I came in today, "don't embarrass anyone". So, I am going to keep all those quotations and all those voting figures closed in the file.
On that issue of Basic Law Article 23, we were pressed very hard to legislate and when we could not get an agreement with Chinese officials we brought forward the legislation. And I now read what some people say about it, and some people's doubts about whether we will get it through or not. So, I am not madly keen on putting forward legislation which I cannot in all honesty recommend to the Executive Council or to others and which is likely to get through the Legislative Council.
畊独窥ㄤ军某
MRS ELIZABETH WONG: I would like to ask the Governor a question, not on the possibility of civil servants being schizophrenic or having split personalities in future, neither on the question which is a heavy-duty question on the legal challenge. But I would like to ask a question which touches on the rights of the child, human rights, civil liberties, all rolled into one. I am referring to the sad case of the illegal child, CHUNG Yeuk-lam, who was evicted from Hong Kong with her parents. Her mother was bound and hurt and wounded. And I do not know whether the Governor would agree with me that this eviction, which touches upon human compassion, is also something which is incompatible with Hong Kong, with our stand on civil liberties, our stand on human rights and our stand on the rights of the child, even though she is an illegal immigrant. Now, I would like to have the Governor's answer to that, please.
GOVERNOR: The photographs which go around the world when one has to deal with a case like this, and it is the same in any society, give the worst sort of public relations, give the worst sort of impression of a society. We, of course, recognize that. But who is to blame? Many of us here are parents, and I think we have views about how as parents we would be prepared to act towards our children and how we would not be prepared to act. I am not sure, whatever the bonds of affection and love, I would want to fill the corridor outside my flat or home with 30 journalists and television cameras. There for what reason? Of course reporting an important news matter, but there also to try to serve the interests of a parent who had presided, not for the first time, over something that was illegal.
I have to say my heart goes out to those people who have to make the policy work, who have to implement it. My heart goes out to the immigration officials, to the Social Welfare Department people, for whom the Honourable lady was once responsible with considerable distinction, having to make a policy like this effective. And why do they have to do it? For the reasons which we were discussing earlier. Because the moment that we back off, the moment that we are not prepared to see a policy through, is the moment when the snakeheads are able the skinheads too! (Laughter) is the moment when the snakeheads, with their skinhead views, let me put it that way, are able to increase the credibility across the border that there may be some changes in policy.
I have been through one or two of these cases before and the moment that you are not prepared to see a policy through which is right just because of the photographs, the moment you are not prepared to back up your own officials when they are doing a very difficult, unpleasant job, the moment you get to that situation, is the moment you are ceasing to provide any leadership in a community.
So, I take full responsibility for what has happened as the head of the Administration. I hope that we have learnt from our experiences this time and can avoid some of the problems which were created, but it is very difficult to carry off something like this in a way which cannot be used and manipulated. And I regret that that happened once again.
畊纯胺Θ某
纯胺Θ某拜畊禯瞒耴临Τ68ぱи獺羆服ネ瞒秨翠êぱи⊿Τ癳и璶钡穝溃穝珼驹и⊿Τ快猭癳程祘璣瓣ê祘渤
さぱиぃ稱矗の︙ぃ┯空のごゼΤ快猭睲╊ê13羬跋ぃ稱矗の-
璣瓣現┎临ゼ癬禗羬ミ猭穦猭︗иさぱ稱毕毕êㄇ"矰"ㄆ龟さぱ常矗の"矰"拜肈羆服ネ弧璶眏肚琌"矰繷"拜肈и谋眔ぃ琌"矰繷"拜肈τ琌"矰"拜肈ㄇ琌"矰"㎡琌翠產嘲肚琌⊿Τノ琌翠產璶-
ㄓ翠妓-
ㄓ翠㎡–ぱΤ150肂ㄤい66琌肂ê66肂琌︙だ皌㎡ぃ琌パ翠だ皌Τ窥產碞禦︗êㄇず硋亥ㄓ翠常琌êㄇㄢ烦-
產Τ窥⊿Τ窥碞膥尿单ぃ璶单︓︙狦羆服ネ瞒翠玡临ぃ话е蹦ㄇ惫琁Τ窥產碞蠢禦虫祘靡ㄓ翠τ⊿Τ窥產碞璶笼肨辰┪倒は敖寸舱發琩砆┻и-
妓獀硂拜肈㎡羆服ネ瘤礛и镍иΤ某и-
瞷р翠產嘲┮ネ场祅癘钩独琍地ネ㎝妮┬〆穦暗猭絪籹祅癘㎝近ユ倒嘲現┎狦и-
Τ硂虫êㄏ琌禦︗璶酚近Ωㄓ翠玥êㄇ絘產硋亥近ぃ-
ㄓ翠-
⊿Τ窥禦︗嘲蛤翠ぃ翠琌猭獀穦嘲窥碞禦ヴ︙狥﹁禦虫祘靡禦﹛︗羆服ネ瞒翠玡临Τ68ぱ丁ずи辨翠êㄇずΤヾㄠ產畑暗ンㄆ蠢-
祅癘礛硓筁い璣羛羛蹈舱┪ヴ︙措笵盢硂ㄇ戈ユ倒ずボ翠よ穦酚硂虫–ぱ钡Μ程糵у舦翠硂碞毕êㄇ"矰"τぃ琌弧肚翠ぃ琌Τ窥碞︽眔硄嘲Τ窥碞︽眔硄"瓣ㄢи"и抖羆服ネ笲иぃ癳
GOVERNOR: I am grateful for that characteristically terse question. It will of course be a particular sadness for me not to see the Honourable gentleman in the future as regularly as I have over the last few years, beginning on the picket line and ending up in the Legislative Council, part of the process of democratization which one sees in Hong Kong and elsewhere. It is an even greater sadness to hear that I am not going to be able to say farewell to the Honourable gentleman, but perhaps we will be able to say so, and to make it "au revoir" rather than "goodbye".
The Honourable gentleman, and I will not take him up on the allegation about broken promises. Actually, we have kept very precisely the promises that we made on temporary housing areas as I will be happy to point out to the Honourable gentleman. When I arrived in Hong Kong, there were 55. Now there will be 12 or 13 when I leave, and all the promises that we made on THAs will have been kept. There would, of course, have been far fewer, perhaps none at all, if it had not been for the continuing steady immigration into Hong Kong.
But the important point which the Honourable Member made is again about the way in which the quota is implemented, and the Honourable gentleman is right to underline the extent to which we are in the hands of those who run the system on the other side of the border. One of the reasons why we have been pressing for greater transparency, for example, for a points system, is to try to ensure that the sort of problems to which the Honourable gentleman alluded cannot actually distort the policy. The more transparency, the more openness, the more parents can see how long they are likely to have to wait, the more they can see that the policy is being implemented fairly so that people are not being allowed to jump the queue, the more that can be done the more effective will the policy be, and the less likely will it be that snakeheads will be able to operate in the disgraceful and dangerous way in which they have in the past.
So, I hope before 30 June, we will have made some progress in that area. I know that it is an area to which the Chief Executive (Designate) and his team also attach priority. And I hope, in the interests of Hong Kong and in the interests of a lot of families who will have rights to be here in Hong Kong, the policy can be made to work more effectively in the future. And I would like to wish the Honourable gentleman well in his future political career.
纯胺Θ某拜羆服ネ讽疭跋快そ絪籹吭高ゅン祇ぃ36翠┎玂碞ミ莱硂贺瞯翠稰躬籖現┎场瞯だ蔼и辨翠┎妓瞯矪瞶硂拜肈τぃノ单せるらиせるら碞ǎぃ羆服ネиぃ矗借高羆服ネ癸и-
弧るら┪きるら碞翠秈︽祅癘羆服ネ矗の硓ず琌⊿Τ硓翠Τ硓翠暗或獽璶荷秖翠暗翠產矗ㄑ玂毁琵-
笵︑璶单510┪11碞ㄓ翠Τ硂妓单戳-
碞ぃ穦禦︗狦⊿Τ单戳杠-
碞穦禦ㄇ"敖寸︗"挡狦框甡羆服ネ辨翠┎穦莱吭高ゅン瞯ㄓ矪瞶–ぱㄓ翠66皌肂拜肈
GOVERNOR: I agree with the Honourable gentleman that we reacted with our customary competence in reacting to that consultation document. I only say in passing, since the Honourable gentleman gives me the opportunity, that I wish we had not needed to do so because the one thing which the consultative document does not do is to demonstrate in any way how any of the laws referred to contravene the Basic Law or for that matter the Joint Declaration. This has been, in my judgment, a wholly unnecessary controversy which has, I think, done some damage to our reputation and I wish the argument had not been embarked on in the first place.
As for the suggestion from the Honourable gentleman that we should attempt to be as competent in the area he has touched on as we have been in others, we will certainly take that to heart. And I am sure if he wears those braces I will be able to go on seeing him, even in the dark! (Laughter)
畊綠產碔某
綠產碔某拜畊さぱ築磏琵纯胺Θ某築磏朝勉矗借高瞷逞祏丁и临и⊿Τ诀穦矗拜辨畊ぃ璶い耞и借高
畊綠某弘虏翴и-
秨﹍筁230だぶ砛┮セ畊甧砛兜借高叫弘虏ㄇ
綠產碔某拜畊и稱锣锣杠肈ぃ酵ㄇ瞃睤ㄆ锣τ癚阶Τ闽膚蹿拜肈程チ囊膚蹿碞吭高ゅン癸現┎碞硂Τ闽そチ︑パ㎝穦吭高ゅン纯ボ窽ゎセ現刮钡瓣竒蕾穿琌礚瞶硂贺猭и-
谋眔粄疭琌ㄏ赋地ネ纯竒璣瓣玂囊膍5窾麻硂薄猵и-
ご礛觅現┎硂瞶パぃ筁赋ネぃ钡秆睦ぃ弧︙膍琌庇稰┮и獺Τ羆服ネ秆氮硂拜肈讽琌玂囊膚蹿璽砫ぇ琂礛-
現┎弧窽ゎ钡膚蹿琌礚瞶硂翴и粄琌Τぃ種ǎ叫拜羆服ネ猭㎝種ǎ︙や現┎種ǎ㎝猭
畊矗眶羆服ネさぱ琌羆服ネōだ氮ぃ琌玡玂囊畊ōだ氮(渤
GOVERNOR: A short tour of the constitution of the Conservative Party. As the Chairman of that body when I was young, (Laughter) before I had all these grey hair, I was responsible for spending the money, not raising it. (Laughter) There is a constitutional distinction between being Treasurer of the Conservative Party and being Chairman, and happily I was in the position as Chairman rather than Treasurer. Nevertheless I read what the newspapers say with interest.
I think my views on this particular issue are much the same as my views on the other matters covered in the consultation document. I cannot understand what the purpose of all this is. It is conceded, I think, by some of the authors of the document that Hong Kong is an incredibly stable, moderate, balanced place. So, it is also, I think, conceded implicitly that none of our laws at present in this area contradict the Basic Law. Does anybody in this Legislative Council, can anybody in this Legislative Council this afternoon, tell me any way in which the Societies Ordinance or the Public Order Ordinance contradict the Basic Law? I am glad we have got agreement on that. There were some who I am sure would have spoken up if they could have thought of any reason.
So, I ask myself what is the point of all this? It causes a great deal of concern in the community. It causes a lot of bad publicity around the world, and it raises inevitably questions about the future commitment to civil liberties. It may be that when people start using expressions like "national security", they do not mean some of the things that people think they mean. But they should not be surprised if, when you start opening up a debate on issues like that, it causes a lot of worry and concern around the community.
The one good thing which seems to me to have come out of it, whether talking about donations to political parties or whatever, is that it has given the community the chance of speaking out and the community has spoken out extremely eloquently within a few weeks of the transition. Our legal profession has spoken out with considerable intellectual vigour. I get a transcript of the phone-in programmes on radio every morning. Ordinary people have spoken out. People have spoken out in the streets. A lot of people have spoken out in the newspapers. So, I think that is a good sign that it has shown for once and for all how much people in Hong Kong are concerned about their freedoms. It is not a question of fund-raising and contributions to political parties.
Of course, many societies have limits which they apply to the amount of money that can be donated for election campaigns, and of course it is true that many countries have laws about the transparency of political donations. But I think trying to prevent any contribution at all would cause very considerable difficulties, difficulties of definition and difficulties of implementation in practice.
And for what purpose? There is a sort of implication of threats in the shadows which none of us at present are aware of but may exist unless these rather illiberal measures are taken. I do not think that there are any threats in the shadows unless people find it threatening that the ordinary men and women of Hong Kong want to go on living in a free and democratic society. If that is a threat then heaven help all of us.
綠產碔某拜и稱矗兜虏虫蛤秈借高и-
у蝶赋地ネ"砛﹛ぃ砛κ﹎翴縊"ぇ玡羆服ネи-
惠璶笵琌êΩ蹿璉Τ現獀ユ硂翴タ琌и-
穦稰庇稰穦储代狦и-
笵Τ現獀ユ∕﹚らミ猭窽ゎセ翠現獀刮砰ぃ莉眔㎝瓣膍и-
猭瞶眖硂よもτぃノ场窽ゎヴ︙現獀刮砰ヴ︙兵ン常ぃ镑钡蹿и辨羆服ネ碞硂ㄆ弧種ǎぃ璶р杠肈ц眔び环
GOVERNOR: Well, let me answer that question in the particular and in the general. I think it would be a grotesque and wholly unwarranted attack on Mr TUNG's integrity to suggest that there was any political transaction as the result of a donation that he made to the Conservative Party. I saw a suggestion in one British newspaper the other day that had obviously been heavily crawled over by the libel lawyers in order to make sure that it did not quite transgress the suggestion that because Mr TUNG had made a donation to the Conservative Party the Governor of Hong Kong had put him on the Executive Council. I mean, anybody who knows anything about Hong Kong, whose mind is not entirely distorted by conspiracy theories, would know precisely what nonsense that was. So, the particular point I would want to make is that I do not think that this controversy should be used by anybody to cast wholly unwarranted slurs on the, I think, unquestioned integrity of the Chief Executive (Designate).
Secondly, are there sometimes political consequences of people making political donations? I suppose there are. There is plainly a great deal of controversy about this in one or two countries right at the moment, but that is why there is an argument for transparency. There is not an argument for not, I think, allowing people to make a donation in the first place. One Honourable Member is keen that there should be transparency when discussing other political activities or political parties here in Hong Kong, and I am sure that is an issue which will continue to command interest in the future.
But I do not think that the wholly correct arguments that the Honourable gentleman put about political transparency should be taken as being on all fours with them prohibiting any donation at all. Where do you draw the line? Where do you draw the line between, for example, a political party and a group which is arguing for a particular political cause, maybe for the improvement of people's human rights? How do you draw the distinction between an alien in Hong Kong and somebody who is local? You could have people who had right of abode in Hong Kong, I suppose, but were still covered by these sort of restrictions. It is a very complicated area and I see no conceivable advantage for Hong Kong in getting involved in it.
ADJOURNMENT AND NEXT SITTING
ヰ穦のΩ穦某
畊酚穦某盽砏セ畊瞷ガセЫヰ穦ガセЫるら琍戳と230だ尿穦
Adjourned accordingly at nineteen minutes to Four o'clock.
穦某笶と341だヰ穦
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL - 24 April 1997
256
ミ猭Ы るら
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL - 24 April 1997
265
ミ猭Ы るら
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.