Sino-British Joint Declaration & The Basic Law • 1984, the Joint Declaration of the Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland the Government of the People’s Republic of China on the Question of Hong Kong declared that “persons of Chinese nationality born outside Hong Kong of such Chinese nationals (who were born or who have ordinarily resided in Hong Kong before or after the establishment of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region for a period of 7 years or more)” “shall have the right of abode in the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region, and, in accordance of the law of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region, be qualified to obtain permanent identity cards issued by the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region Government, which state their right of abode. ” (Annex I, chapter XIV) • 1990, National People’s Congress Standing Committee passed the Basic Law, and has included the fore mentioned declaration into Art. 24 of the Basic Law.
Basic Law Article 24 1. Residents of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region ("Hong Kong residents") shall include permanent residents and non-permanent residents. The permanent residents of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region shall be: 2. Chinese citizens born in Hong Kong before or after the establishment of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region; 3. Chinese citizens who have ordinarily resided in Hong Kong for a continuous period of not less than seven years before or after the establishment of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region; • Persons of Chinese nationality born outside Hong Kong of those residents listed in categories (1) and (2); l The above-mentioned residents shall have the right of abode in the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region and shall be qualified to obtain, in accordance with the laws of the Region, permanent identity cards which state their right of abode.
3 rd July , 1997 • A large amount of children born in the mainland of Hong Kong parents rushed to the Immigration Department on the first business day after the handover, demanding that their right of abode in Hong Kong as stated in the Basic Law be realised. • Within a week 400 illegal immigrants surrendered themselves to the Immigration Department.
9 th July, 1997 • The Provisional Legislature passed the 1997 Immigration（Amendment No. 3）Ordinace within 1 day, which required that children born in the mainland as to obtain a “Certificate of Entitlement” before they can come to Hong Kong. • The law would be back dated to take effect on 1 July 1997. • A number of mainland • children resort to the court, • objecting a repatriation.
High Court • Oct 1997, 4 representative cases to fight for an immediate realisation of mainland children’s right of abode in Hong Kong were all defeated. • Justice Keith ruled that the Certificate of Entitlement as stated in the Immigration Ordinance does not violate the Basic Law and the Bill of Rights. However, the judge ruled that children born out of wedlock would also have the right of abode in Hong Kong. • On Jan 1998, In another case concerning 81 mainland children, Justice Keith ruled that children born before either of their parents obtained permanent residency in Hong Kong should have the right of abode in Hong Kong.
Court of Appeal • Apr, 1998. The Court of Appeal ruled that mainland children came to reside in Hong Kong before 1 July 1997, whether they are born of or out of wedlock, should have the right of abode in Hong Kong immediately. • Those who came on or after 1 July 1997 would have to go back to the mainland to queue for a Certificate of Entitlement. • May, 1998. The Court of Appeal overturn the High Court’s judgment, and ruled that children have to be born after either of their parent obtained permanent residency in Hong Kong to have the right of abode in Hong Kong.
Court of FINAL Appeal • The Court of Final Appeal ruled that Certificate of Entitlement do not have to be attached to a One Way Permit, and that the Immigration (Amendment) Ordinance could not be dated back. • The Court also ruled that children born out of wedlock should have the right of abode in Hong Kong, and that children should also have the right of abode in Hong Kong once either of their parent obtained permanent residency in Hong Kong.
• 28 th Apr, 1999 HK Government claimed that preliminary statistics suggested that over 1. 67 million additional mainland children were entitled to have the right of abode in Hong Kong, according to the Court of Final Appeal judgment. • 6 th May, 1999 HK Government claimed that if those additional mainland children entitled to have the right of abode in Hong Kong according to the Court of Final Appeal judgment all came to Hong Kong within the next 10 years, Hong Kong would need to spend an addition 710 billion non recurrent expenditure, and have to develop 6000 hectare of land for housing and other basic fascilities.
Re-interpretation of Basic Law • 18 th May, 1999 The then Ex. Co decided that the Chief Executive would demand the National Council for a reinterpretation by the NPCSC of the Basic Law Art. 24(2) and (3), and Art. 22(4), so to restore the part of the Immigration Ordinance that has been strike down by the Court of Final Appeal on the ground that it is unconstitutional. • The reinterpretation was also expected to required that mainland children has to be born after either of their parents has obtained permanent residency in Hong Kong to have the right of abode in Hong Kong. The One Way Permit Scheme was also expected to be restored. • 19 th May, 1999 The then Leg. Co passed the bill to asked the NPC for a reinterpretation of the Basic Law.
Basic Law : Article 158 • The power of interpretation of this Law shall be vested in the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress. • The SCNPC shall authorize the courts of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region to interpret on their own, in adjudicating cases, the provisions of this Law which are within the limits of the autonomy of the Region. • The courts of the HKSAR may also interpret other provisions of this Law in adjudicating cases. However, if the courts of the Region, in adjudicating cases, need to interpret the provisions of this Law concerning affairs which are the responsibility of the Central People's Government, or concerning the relationship between the Central Authorities and the Region, and if such interpretation will affect the judgments on the cases, the courts of the Region shall, before making their final judgments which are not appealable, seek an interpretation of the relevant provisions from the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress through the Court of Final Appeal of the Region.
HK’s Darkest Day in history • 26 th June, 1999 The NPCSC passed a reinterpretation of the Basic Law Art 22(4) and 24(2) and (3), that only those mainland children born after either of their parents obtained permanent residency in Hong Kong could have the right of abode in Hong Kong. • The estimated figure of 1. 6 million who were entitled to have the right of abode in Hong Kong went down drastically to about 270 thousand.
• June 30, 1999, six hundred legal professionals, launched their first demonstration against the Government's request for an interpretation the Basic Law. • The mass silently stand outside the building of Court of Final Appeal, symbolising the death of the independence of justice in Hong Kong.
• Hong Kong Government decided to give permanent residency to those right of abode claimants who came to Hong Kong between 1 July 1997 and 29 January 1999, if they have claimed to the Hong Kong Government their right of abode in Hong Kong within that period, and the Immigration Director kept these record. • The estimated figure of those under the concession was about 3, 700.
We gave up everything in the mainland but that doesn't mean that our lives are empty. to living on my own. Ever since I was 10, I • "I am used studied alone, cooked and ate alone. When I was sick I went to see the doctor alone, " Ah Oi, a mainland-born daughter of a Hong Kong resident explained. • She gave up her home and job on the mainland moved to Hong Kong to be with her family after the Court of Final Appeal (CFA) • When I first came to HK, I thought how lucky the kids were. They have everything they want and more, they have parents by their side. They are not like us, but we are all Chinese! Just because we were born in different places, our lives are worlds apart. I don't understand. • We gave up everything in the mainland but that doesn't mean that our lives are empty. Where is the respect for human rights? Where is the respect for the rule of law? Do Hong Kong people care?
Is it my fault that I grow up? • • • Ah Shou came to Hong Kong at the end of 1998 when the CFA was about to deliever. All he is concerned about is caring for his ageing father who has tuberculosis and is confined to bed. Every morning Ah Shou gives his father his medication and monitors his breathing machine. He then has to take his crippled mother to the toilet and prepare breakfast. Ah Shou's father was born in Hong Kong. In 1983, Ah Shou, together with his mother and younger brother began applying for residency. The mainland government granted a permit to his mother in the mid-80 s. Ah Shou appealed to the mainland government to grant a permit to either his brother or himself because his crippled mother could not take care of his father. Approval was not forthcoming. It was argued that if one of the sons were granted Hong Kong residency, the remittance sent from the parents to the family in the mainland would be much less and could affect the local economy. "According to mainland law, a second family member can only be granted residency 10 years after that of the first one. My mother applied again for us 10 years after she arrived in Hong Kong, but we had exceeded the age limit by then. Is it my fault that I grow up? I cannot wait forever. The mainland's policy is also forever changing.
• The mainland applicants were finally forced to return across the border and told to apply for residency in the traditional manner. • As Christians, it is our duty to promote peace, but we must not forget our mission to struggle for social justice. Very often when we stand up to injustice, we also find ourselves at odds with society, the state, or the privileged classes. • Conflict is inevitable and we may be labeled as radicals or as in this case, "the invisible black hand". But we should understand that our duty as Christians to promote justice and human rights is not just a slogan -- it should not be reduced to empty words. It involves taking action and often means taking the side of the deprived or the poor, sharing their pain and their struggle.
Скачать презентацию Sino-British Joint Declaration The Basic Law
a7688fd6a4008a4595cc7c31acbf9108.ppt