Hong Kong

Your assertion in “A Hand Falls on Hong Kong” (editorial, June 29) that the interpretation by China’s Standing Committee of the National People’s Congress on the residency rights provisions in the Basic Law undermines Hong Kong’s promised high degree of autonomy does not do justice to Hong Kong. The Basic Law--like the American Constitution--includes a very clear legal mechanism by which the law can be interpreted or amended. The power of final interpretation lies with the Standing Committee of the NPC, while the power of amendment lies with the NPC. These powers have been expressly acknowledged by the Court of Final Appeal. Any interpretation could not have diminished the status of the CFA. It would simply reflect the respective roles given to the CFA and the Standing Committee.

It cannot be argued that the interpretation undermines Hong Kong’s judicial independence. Judges are free to decide cases in accordance with the law. If, however, there is an authoritative statement on the law, judges are also duty-bound to decide cases on this basis. The route taken by the Hong Kong government is supported by the community and the Legislative Council. It is not a solution imposed on Hong Kong--in fact the leadership in Beijing has repeatedly stressed its preference for the matter to be resolved by Hong Kong.

MICHAEL LEE, Director

Hong Kong Economic and Trade Office, San Francisco