Authorities reviewing options for dealing with thorny right of abode issue 

The Chairman of the Basic Law Institute Alan Hoo says the Ministry of Foreign Affairs in Beijing has stated it is not prepared to change the Basic Law, nor review it a second time, on the question of right of abode. 

Hoo's comments came after meeting with Ministry of Foreign Affairs officials in Beijing on Friday. 

A day before the meeting, Hoo also exchanged views with the Hong Kong and Macao Affairs Office of the State Office in Beijing. 

Hoo said after the meetings, he foresees a two-step solution for SAR government to solve the long-standing dispute over the right of abode for all babies born in the city. 

Hoo recommends the SAR government restore the status quo on right of abode, prior to the 2002 amendment to the Immigration Ordinance. The Immigration Ordinance was amended in 2002, opening the door to babies born to mainland parents in Hong Kong, as a result of a 2001 Court of Final Appeal decision. In that instance, the court ruled in favour of a right of abode petition on behalf of Chong Fung-yuen, an infant born to mainland parents. 

Following restoration of the statute to its pre-2002 standing, Hoo proposed a second step. He called for an administrative measure under which the government would provide notice to mainland women coming to the city, that even if their babies are born in the city, they may not receive automatic right of abode. The conditions applying to that right were written into the Sino-British Joint Declaration. 

If there is no legal challenge after the government has undertaken both measures, Hoo believes the problem will be resolved for the most part. If the matter comes to a court challenge, it will be up to the Court of Final Appeal to decide, added Hoo. 

In response to Hoo's proposal for a local law amendment, Regina Ip, the former secretary for security who submitted the 2002 amendment, said restoration of the ordinance is not legally possible because the administration still has to follow the judgment of the Court of Final Appeal today. 

If all administrative measures failed, she urged the government to consider seriously an interpretation specific to article 24. The interpretation issued by the National People's Congress Standing Committee in 1999 was considered not applicable because it concerned only children of Hong Kong citizens born outside Hong Kong. 

Hoo had urged the central government to unveil the part of the legal paper, involved in the "legislative intent" when drafting the Basic Law. The request was denied. 

Hoo, who believes release of the paper is key to solving the matter, added, "the booklet was actually unveiled when it was presented in court in the Chong Fung-yuen case". 

"The important thing is there was no evidence presented to the court that the booklet is accurate because it is not a record, but a narrative of the agreement. The court had no legal standing to accept the booklet," said Hoo. 

"All you need is either side to confirm the booklet, presented (in 1999 in court) by the SAR government, is an accurate reflection of the JLG (Sino-British Joint Liaison Group) agreement," said Hoo. 

Hoo said he will seek confirmation from the UK parliament next week. 

stushadow@chinadailyhk.com 

Kahon Chan contributed to the story.