Sino-British Joint Declaration
& The Basic Law
•
•
1984, the Joint Declaration of the Government of the United Kingdom of
Great Britain and Northern Ireland and 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);
 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.
3rd 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.
9th 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.
• 28th 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.
• 6th 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
• 18th May,1999 The then ExCo 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.
• 19th May,1999 The then LegCo 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
• 26th 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.
• "I am used to living on my own. Ever since I was 10, I
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 and 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-80s. 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.