In the press
Updated: 2013-03-27 06:32
(HK Edition)
|
|||||||
CFA's significant ruling
The five justices of the Court of Final Appeal (CFA), handling an appeal on behalf of foreign domestic helpers (FDHs) seeking permanent residency in Hong Kong, ruled on Monday that preconditions FDHs must accept in order to work here are so restrictive that they do not qualify as "ordinary stay" citizens, and are therefore disqualified from seeking right of abode in Hong Kong.
The decision is significant. On one hand, it finally clarifies that FDHs working in Hong Kong do not qualify as "ordinary stay" as defined by the Basic Law, and effectively puts an end to the right of adobe for FDHs issue within the confines of existing law. On the other hand, it also sets three preconditions for the CFA to seek National People's Congress Standing Committee (NPCSC) interpretation of the Basic Law, acknowledging the fact that the CFA respects the NPCSC's right to interpret the Basic Law.
However, because the CFA chose not to seek NPCSC clarification of the Basic Law concerning right of adobe for children born here of parents who are mainland residents without Hong Kong permanent residency this time, the SAR government will have to rely on available administrative measures to deal with cases concerning right of adobe for such children. After all, this issue should be ultimately resolved by judicial rather than administrative means. Relevant SAR authorities should on their own initiative ask the NPCSC to interpret the Basic Law when they see fit in order to solve the issue for good.
Now that the CFA has stopped short of ending the controversy over right of adobe for children of "non-local parents" by asking the NPCSC to interpret the Basic Law, the government is left to its own administrative powers to address future problems. The CFA should find a way to nullify its own 2001 ruling or ask the NPCSC to interpret the Basic Law so as to put this mess to rest once and for all.
This is an excerpted translation of a Wen Wei Po editorial published on March 26.
Lee Ming-chun
Respect the Basic Law
Director of the NPCSC Law Committee Qiao Xiaoyang's speech in Shenzhen on Saturday about universal suffrage in Hong Kong is a promise to HKSAR compatriots and a reaffirmation of following the Basic Law regarding the Chief Executive (CE) Election. It will help bring order out of chaos as the constitutional reform takes its course.
Martin Lee Chu-ming and his fellow opposition politicians were joined by sympathetic press in accusing the central government of "hammering out a framework around universal suffrage without consulting the public" and called it undemocratic, which is nothing but a file of lies aimed at hiding the truth from the public. Everything concerning the CE election by universal suffrage must follow the Basic Law to the letter, period.
Qiao's speech reiterated that the central government is firm and steadfast on holding CE election by universal suffrage in 2017, in which candidates must be patriots, and that the CE election must be conducted according to the Basic Law. It is in complete agreement with the 1984 Sino-British Joint Declaration on Hong Kong's sovereignty and proves the central government is the true driving force behind Hong Kong's democratic development, while Lee and the opposition camp he represents have been trying to sabotage the progress of democracy.
The original text of the Sino-British Joint Declaration reads: "The Chief Executive of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region shall be selected by election or through consultations held locally and be appointed by the Central People's Government. Principal officials (equivalent to secretaries) shall be nominated by the Chief Executive of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region and appointed by the Central People's Government." And Deng Xiaoping emphasized in a meeting with Hong Kong compatriots in 1984 that Hong Kong's autonomy requires a government with patriots as its mainstay.
Martin Lee opposed the return of Hong Kong's sovereignty to China back in the 1980s and advocated continued British rule after 1997. His recent interview with Apple Daily, in which he accused the central government of "deceiving Hong Kong's public", and claimed that Hong Kong people "can no longer put up with the lies", was devoid of truth and legal basis.
The author is a current affairs commentator. This is an excerpted translation of his column published in Ta Kung Pao on March 26.
(HK Edition 03/27/2013 page9)