I refer to the letter from Kam Lam (South China Morning Post, June 13) on the subject of the provisional legislature.
Mr Lam asks why, in my letter of May 26, I was 'diverting . . . attention from the present law to the Basic Law'.
He appears to have forgotten that the correspondence on this issue began with Sze-yuen Chung's letter of April 5, which was concerned with 'whether or not the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region courts have the jurisdiction to adjudicate on the legality of the HKSAR provisional legislature'. He also suggested that I should be careful not to offer my views on matters, actual or hypothetical, which are beyond my term of appointment. But the matters in question have raised immediate concerns not only among the general public but also among the legal profession. It is only right that those who are concerned for the well-being of the community, now or in the future, should have spoken out.
Mr Lam now raises a new issue by suggesting that I should be more concerned with the lawfulness of the provisional legislature under existing Hong Kong laws.
In fact, the British Foreign Secretary issued a detailed statement on this issue on December 20, 1996. And, as your readers will know, this issue has recently been before the courts and may possibly be the subject of further proceedings.
I wish to make it clear that my previous letters did not comment on whether the provisional legislature will or will not be a lawful body after June 30. They were only concerned with the question whether the courts of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region (HKSAR) will have jurisdiction to adjudicate on the issue. As my letter of April 18, emphasised, the assertion that those courts will be powerless to question the legality of the provisional legislature, simply because its existence is said to flow from a decision of the National People's Congress (NPC), could give rise to great public concern. My purpose in writing on this subject was to challenge that assertion and allay public concern.