I refer to 'Judges should 'fight for the law' ' (South China Morning Post, May 17) in which your writers predict that the Executive Council will seek a reinterpretation of the Basic Law, arising from the Court of Final Appeal's (CFA) decision on the right of abode. Not only would such a decision be fundamentally wrong, it will lead to significant damage in the form of an ongoing perception, here and overseas, that the Government has dealt the rule of law a critical blow. Before the Executive Council considers such a step may I suggest that thought be given to an alternative course of action. The question of how and when implementation of the court's decision would occur was not argued before the CFA. Further, the question of whether the constitutional rights of other interested parties could be breached if implementation was to be full and immediate, was also not argued. In such circumstances I wonder if the Government would give consideration to preparing a proposal for implementation of the decision of the court and submitting the same to the Court of First Instance for a declaratory order that its proposal is consistent with the decision of the CFA. Precedent for such an approach may be found in the United States in the case of Brown v The Board of Education which ultimately involved a ruling about implementation of the court's earlier decision on desegregation of schools. It is submitted that, rather than take the course anticipated, the community's interest would be better served by leaving the matter to full argument and resolution in the courts. P. WHITE Stanley