|
14 November 2002
The Editor
South China Morning Post
Dear Sir,
Martin Lee argues that it was wrong for the SAR government to have consulted the central government on its proposals to implement Article 23 (SCMP, 13 November 2002). He cites many articles of the Basic Law, but they do not substantiate his argument.
The consultation was in no way contrary to the requirement that Hong Kong shall enact relevant laws "on its own". The enactment of those laws remains a matter for Hong Kong's Legislative Council. There is no substance to Mr Lee's allegation that the SAR government has "unilaterally and unjustifiably sacrificed legislative power to enact the laws in Article 23". Hong Kong's legislative power has not been reduced by one iota.
Mr Lee correctly points out that the Standing Committee of the NPC has the power to invalidate a law enacted by the Legislative Council if it is not in conformity with certain provisions in the Basic Law. Those provisions include Article 23.
It was therefore entirely sensible to consult the central authorities about the proposals. How can "one country, two systems" work if the two parties do not speak to each other? The consultations were on matters of principle. Consultation does not mean that the SARG allowed itself to be dictated to. On the contrary, it enabled the SARG to explain Hong Kong's own system and the merits of our proposals.
Faithful implementation of Article 23 in no way precludes consultation with the Central Government.
Yours faithfully,
( Bob Allcock )
Solicitor General
|
