USEUROPEAFRICAASIA 中文雙語Fran?ais
    China
    Home / China / Hong Kong's 20th return anniversary to China

    SAR urged to accept top legislature's authority to interpret Basic Law

    By Joseph Li in Hong Kong | HK Edition | Updated: 2017-06-13 07:05

    SAR urged to accept top legislature's authority to interpret Basic Law

    The LegCo oath fiasco last year has triggered an interpretation of the Basic Law by the National People’s Congress Standing Committee. The country’s top legislature has the lawful authority to exercise interpretations of the Basic Law, former chief secretary for administration Henry Tang Ying-yen says. Hong Kong people, including legal professionals, should understand that the top legislature will not exercise an interpretation without good reason. Justin Chin / Bloomberg

    Former chief secretary for administration Henry Tang Ying-yen believes Hong Kong people, including the legal profession, must accept that the country's top legislature has the lawful authority to exercise interpretations of the Basic Law, and that there was a need to interpret the Basic Law on each occasion.

    Since the handover in 1997, the National People's Congress Standing Committee (NPCSC) has interpreted provisions of the Basic Law on five occasions.

    "The Basic Law has clearly spelt out that the NPCSC has the power to interpret the Basic Law and the NPCSC will not exercise an interpretation without reasons," he said.

    "We have seen five interpretations of Basic Law provisions since 1997 and each interpretation was justified. They include interpretations related to the right of abode case in 1999, the term of office of the Chief Executive in 2005 and the Congo case in 2011 because it involved foreign affairs," he explained.

    In a recent newspaper interview Andrew Li Kwok-nang, former chief justice of the Court of Final Appeal, said the latest interpretation of Basic Law Article 104 related to oaths and disqualification of certain Legislative Council members last year yielded a negative public impression on judicial independence in Hong Kong. This is because it occurred before the court ruling.

    Tang disagreed but said he understood why the former chief justice made such comments.

    He said: "For the case of LegCo oath fiasco, the timing of interpretation of Basic Law Article 104 before the ruling was appropriate. If the interpretation took place after the ruling and the ruling happened to be inconsistent with the interpretation, people would grumble that the interpretation in effect overturned the court verdict."

    Tang, however, admitted the interpretation on the right-of-abode case in 1999 was highly controversial because it was the very first time the NPCSC interpreted Basic Law provisions. It happened after the Court of Final Appeal had handed down a ruling.

    joseph@chinadailyhk.com

    Editor's picks
    Copyright 1995 - . All rights reserved. The content (including but not limited to text, photo, multimedia information, etc) published in this site belongs to China Daily Information Co (CDIC). Without written authorization from CDIC, such content shall not be republished or used in any form. Note: Browsers with 1024*768 or higher resolution are suggested for this site.
    License for publishing multimedia online 0108263

    Registration Number: 130349
    FOLLOW US
     
    久久中文娱乐网| 久久精品无码午夜福利理论片| 无码AV中文字幕久久专区| 久久久久久久人妻无码中文字幕爆 | 天堂√中文最新版在线| 亚洲国产精品成人精品无码区| 亚洲不卡中文字幕无码| 国产AV无码专区亚洲Av| 日韩av无码久久精品免费| 国模无码人体一区二区| 中文字幕日本在线观看| 一本色道无码道在线| 国产免费黄色无码视频| 蜜桃臀无码内射一区二区三区| 国产色无码精品视频免费| 最近最新中文字幕高清免费| 中文字幕乱码人妻一区二区三区 | 国产网红无码精品视频| 日韩免费人妻AV无码专区蜜桃| 无码AV动漫精品一区二区免费 | 波多野结衣在线中文| 亚洲一区二区无码偷拍| 久久精品无码av| JLZZJLZZ亚洲乱熟无码| 精品久久久久久久无码| 免费A级毛片无码专区| 久久久久亚洲av无码专区喷水 | 色爱无码AV综合区| 无码AV中文字幕久久专区| 无码国产乱人伦偷精品视频| 亚洲AV无码一区东京热久久| 中文字幕丰满乱子伦无码专区| 寂寞少妇做spa按摩无码| 一本色道久久HEZYO无码| 一本加勒比HEZYO无码人妻| 亚洲欧洲日产国码无码网站| 无码人妻精品一区二区三区66| 亚洲AV区无码字幕中文色| 久久午夜伦鲁片免费无码| 国产成人AV一区二区三区无码| 毛片免费全部无码播放|