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

    Updated: 2017-06-13 07:05

    By Joseph Li in Hong Kong(HK Edition)

      Print Mail Large Medium  Small 分享按鈕 0

    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.

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

    "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

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

    (HK Edition 06/13/2017 page4)

    野花在线无码视频在线播放| 国产成A人亚洲精V品无码性色| 无码精品人妻一区二区三区漫画| 人妻无码中文字幕免费视频蜜桃| 中文字幕无码人妻AAA片| 亚洲精品成人无码中文毛片不卡| 精品久久久久久无码专区| 亚洲AV无码码潮喷在线观看| 最近最好最新2019中文字幕免费| 亚洲欧美中文字幕高清在线| 精品久久久久久无码免费| 无码人妻黑人中文字幕| 狠狠躁天天躁中文字幕无码 | 亚洲中文字幕无码日韩| 777久久精品一区二区三区无码 | 亚洲中文字幕日本无线码| 无码国产69精品久久久久网站| 无码人妻一区二区三区一| 人妻少妇精品中文字幕av蜜桃| 色欲香天天综合网无码| 国产精品va无码一区二区| 日韩人妻无码一区二区三区久久| 亚洲av福利无码无一区二区 | 日韩av无码中文字幕| 亚洲国产精品无码久久98| 一本加勒比hezyo无码专区| 中文字幕日韩精品无码内射| 四虎影视无码永久免费| 成人无码网WWW在线观看| 亚洲国产AV无码专区亚洲AV| 中文字幕无码人妻AAA片| 亚洲av无码成h人动漫无遮挡| 亚洲AV无码成人精品区在线观看| 无码少妇精品一区二区免费动态| 亚洲av激情无码专区在线播放| 人妻无码第一区二区三区| 无码日韩人妻精品久久蜜桃 | 91久久九九无码成人网站 | 亚洲午夜无码久久久久小说| 久久综合一区二区无码| 久久久噜噜噜久久中文字幕色伊伊|