We have already had the unedifying spectacle of our Chief Secretary for Administration, Anson Chan, behaving like that character in Alice In Wonderland who said 'words mean what I want them to mean' when she said 'we are not seeking reinterpretation, we are seeking interpretation'.
Now we have a government Deputy Law Officer (R. Allcock) telling us he no longer understands the basic tenets of the common law, that he has presumably been practising for some considerable time (letter, South China Morning Post, May 19).
Mr Allcock, with amazing disregard, tells us that on the one hand he agrees with the sentiments expressed in the judgment that Mr Justice Godfrey had previously quoted (letter, Post, May 12) on the dangers of rewriting open justice behind closed doors. Yet on the other hand he tells us he cannot see its relevance to the current controversy.
He may feel obliged to take such an illogical position on behalf of his employers. But if he stopped and looked impartially at this issue he would surely concede that the Government did not seek the usual common law remedy that of amendment of the constitution.
This may well be because the Government does not wish to tell the Basic Law drafters that their Article 24 does in fact grant very wide rights of permanent residence. (I would urge those letter writers who have chosen to take the Judiciary to task on this matter to read the Basic Law and in particular Article 24.) By the way, Article 158 gives a Hong Kong court the power to seek interpretation of provisions of the Basic Law before reaching a judgment. I can find no such power allocated to an unsuccessful litigant to seek (re)interpretation after judgment.
Is my copy of the Basic Law badly translated, or is this another example of the 'new civil law system of the PRC' that Mr Allcock is urging us to get used to? MARY HOGAN The Peak
