A betrayal of trust

HIS face reflected some of the gravity of the situation. Looking deeply frustrated and perplexed, Sir Ti Liang Yang faced the TV cameras on Sunday night and said sombrely: 'I've learned a lesson, and I'll not talk too much even with my friends.' The chief justice confessed he did not imagine his off-the-cuff remarks on the Bill of Rights at a social function would become ammunition for Chinese officials to attack Britain in the bitter political row.

By drawing the apparent support of the territory's top judge for Beijing's position that the bill has undermined Hong Kong's legal system, the Chinese Government was able to amplify its calls to dilute the ordinance which protects human rights.

As well as being a stinging slap in the face for both the British and Hong Kong governments, the latest twist in this drama has created added confusion in the community over the legality of the Bill of Rights.

The political row unfolded after the Preliminary Working Committee's legal sub-group unveiled its proposals on the bill last month. The National People's Congress Standing Committee, say committee members, should declare as 'invalid' key provisions of the ordinance enacted four years ago.

Furthermore, six pieces of legislation amended as a result of enactment should be reinstated to their original form. Weeks have passed with the debate dominating radio phone-in programmes, newspaper columns and figuring highly at the Joint Liaison Group plenum. Perhaps unsurprisingly, the differences have, if anything, widened rather than been resolved.

China remains firm that the essence of the row was a battle against a British plot to cultivate turmoil in the future Special Administrative Region (SAR). Like the struggle over Chris Patten's political reforms, it is a row that has to be fought to the end at whatever cost.