Page:Hong Kong Basic Law consultation report vol. 1.djvu/83

 adjudicating future cases.

Members were afraid that the drafters would object to such a procedure. It was therefore held that a more reasonable practice would be to seek the interpretation of the Standing Committee before the courts of the HKSAR adjudicate the case in question and the interpretation obtained should be used as the basis for rendering judgments.

8. A member noted that it had been suggested that in the last paragraph, the meaning of "shall" as in "shall consult" should be duly expressed in the Chinese text.

A drafter pointed out that the above-mentioned proposal had been put forward at a Drafting Committee meeting but was rejected. Another member pointed out that the word "shall" was not necessary in the Chinese text as it was implied in the sentence that the Committee for the Basic Law would be consulted as a standard procedure. Other members held that the proposed provision "shall consult the Committee for the Basic Law" in the Chinese text was too rigid and would not necessarily be the best arrangement.

Finally, members agreed that the last paragraph of this article could be rewritten in the same manner as Paragraph 3 of Article 158: "Before an interpretation of this Law is given by the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress, the Committee for the Basic Law of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region shall study it and submit its views."

9. A member agreed that the amended article in Point 5 was better than the present article in the Basic Law (Draft), but asked why only the Attorney General had the right to make a request to the courts.

10. A member noted that the same criticism of the term "Central Authorities" applied to this article as to Article 17. This was also true of the amended article in Point 5.

A member suggested prescribing that the courts of Hong Kong alone should interpret the Basic Law and all other laws applied to Hong Kong as only such a provision would be satisfactory and be in keeping with the existing system of law which is supposed to remain in accordance with Articles 8 and 18.

Annexes: Amendment Procedure

1. A member suggested that the amendment procedure for the Annexes should be the same as that for the articles, i.e. as prescribed in Article 158. Otherwise, the procedure would be oversimplified if Annex III could be amended just by