|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Hong Kong's top court reverses Chinese immigrant-abode rulingDecember 3, 1999
HONG KONG (CNN) -- Hong Kong's Court of Final Appeal, which argued Beijing has the right to reinterpret the territory's laws, reversed on Friday its decision on the right of abode for mainland Chinese. The judges ruled 4-1 against 17 Chinese immigrants' appeal to stay in Hong Kong, sparking angry protests by mainland Chinese who claimed a constitutional right to live in the region. More than 1,000 Chinese immigrants clashed with police after hearing the ruling. Some protesters flailed at the officers with broom handles and hurled piles of rubbish at them. Police sprayed streams of pepper mace to drive back the demonstrators, some of whom threatened to storm the building housing Hong Kong Chief Executive Tung Chee-hwa's office.
Immigrant: 'You can kill us'"You can jail us. You can kill us. We will not leave," one 33-year-old woman cried over a loud speaker. Another woman said the decision was unfair because it would mean thousands of Chinese would be deported from Hong Kong while immigrants of other nationalities would be allowed to stay. The ruling means the 17 mainland immigrants have run out of options and will be deported. They will not be able to plead their case in court. In reading out the decision, Chief Justice Andrew Li said the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress, China's top legislature, had the right to reinterpret Hong Kong law and to impose its views on the territory's courts. "The Standing Committee has the power to make the interpretation... It is a valid and binding interpretation...which the courts are under a duty to follow."
Decision ends intense legal disputeFriday's decision ended the most intense legal dispute since Britain returned this former colony to China in July 1997, and set new limits on Hong Kong's legal autonomy. The court rendered a decision in January in favor of the immigrants, ruling any mainlander with one parent possessing Hong Kong citizenship had the right to live in the territory. Hong Kong's government objected however, suggesting the ruling would create an influx of immigrants -- possibly 1.5 million people -- too great for Hong Kong to handle. Tung referred the matter to the National People's Congress, China's top legislature, and Beijing agreed with that assessment. The NPC's Standing Committee urged the court to rethink its ruling. In reinterpreting the Hong Kong constitution, the Standing Committee said Chinese immigrants must apply for documentation on the mainland before immigrating to Hong Kong, a process that can take 20 years or more. Advocates: Ruling jeopardizes autonomyThe court's reversal said Hong Kong must respect Beijing's interpretation of the law. Some human rights advocates however, suggest the decision jeopardizes the region's autonomy from China. Under handover agreements between Beijing and London, Hong Kong was guaranteed a large degree of autonomy for 50 years, and its independent judiciary and British Common Law system. "It's obviously bad for Hong Kong. It makes Hong Kong a less humane place," said Rob Brooks, a lawyer for the immigrants. "The Court of Final Appeal finding that the NPC can simply overturn its judgments...should make people in Hong Kong feel less comfortable about their constitutional rights," he said. Hong Kong Bureau Chief Mike Chinoy and Reuters contributed to this report. RELATED STORIES: Is Hong Kong Open Only for Business? RELATED SITES: See related sites about East Asia
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Back to the top |
© 2001 Cable News Network. All Rights Reserved. Terms under which this service is provided to you. Read our privacy guidelines. |