Constitutions are not fixed in stone
I refer to the letter by K. M. Chong ('Small- house grant elevated to constitutional right under Basic Law', June 28).
The main thrust of the letter is that because the small-house policy is now a constitutional right, this right should be protected even if the indigenous villager abuses this right by selling for a quick profit.
The fact that your correspondent was 'alarmed' by changes proposed by the development minister would suggest that even mere discussion of a change to the constitutional right would be regarded as an attack on it.
What was not mentioned is that freedom of speech is protected under Article 27 of the Basic Law. There is nothing in the Basic Law that specifically prohibits discussion of the constitutional right of indigenous villagers to build small houses. Or is it suggested that the right to build small houses is presumed to be included in Article 40, making it a constitutional right, and so makes it discussion- and amendment-proof?
Constitutions once drafted are not meant to be fixed in stone for all time as a testament to the wisdom of its drafters. In fact, they are amended when necessary to fix unintended loopholes and to better reflect the times and situation of the country.
The US constitution has been amended 27 times, with the first 10 amendments ratified within three years of the ratification of the original constitution, well within the lifetimes of the original drafters. The constitution of the People's Republic of China was first amended in 1988 to allow for a private economy and transfer of land use rights.